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
Running title:
Notices of judgment
N.J., I.F.R
Physical Description:
v. : ; 23 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Production and Marketing Administration
Publisher:
The Administration
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 )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
law report or digest   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
United States Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
1-25 (issued Oct. 1950)-134-169 (issued Apr. 1953).
General Note:
Title from caption.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 004700304
oclc - 01768639
lccn - sn 98047302
Classification:
lcc - SB951 .U51
System ID:
AA00008506:00001

Related Items

Succeeded by:
Notices of judgment under the federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act

Full Text

CATALOG


* *~)** ~
*_
'47:


SW~


:, 1. F. R. 77-133


FEB ed J1953
Issued January 1958


SOTE D STATES DEPARTMENT
' -I7- AGRICULTURE


OF


PRODUCTION


AND


MARKETING


ADMINISTRATION


LIVESTOCK BRANCH


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


FEDERAL


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


NOS.


77-133


The notices of judgment herewith 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. 1946 ed.
Supp. V,135d).
H. E. REED,
Director, Livestock Branch,
Production and Marketing Administration.
WASHINGTeroN, D. C., October 28, 1952.


77. Lack of registration, lack of required information on labels, and misbranding
of "National Mange Oil." U. S. v. 1 1-gallon can and 4 5-gallon cans, more
or less, of "National Mange Oil." Decree of confiscation and destruc-
tion. (I. F. & R. No. 28. I. D. No. 17911.)


The product, "N
Insecticide, Fungic
showed that the lai
proper ingredient
appearing on the la
On July 8, 1949,
acting upon a repo
District Court a li
1-gallon can and 4
worth, Minn., alleg
transported interest


a tie
ide,
lads
tat~
bels
the


nal Mange Oil," was not registered under the Federal
and Rodentieide Act. An examination of the product
affixed to the containers of the product did not bear a
ment as required by the act, and that certain statements
were false or misleading.
United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota.


rt by ti
bel lra
5-galloi
ing tha
ate, on


pany, from Sioux Falls,
and todenticide Act.
It was alleged that tl
culture as required by
It was alleged that
not bear a proper ingr
so designated in the inj
It was alleged that
certain cans of the pro


e Secretary
Lying seizure
n cans, more
t the produce
or about M1


of Agrici
for corwl
or less, o
t \\'as an
iay 19, 19-


ilture
lt'mna
f "Na
eeono
I!), by


, filed in the
tion and con
tional Mange
mic poison wv
National Co


S. Dak., in violation of the Federal Insectici


United States
fiscation of 1
Oil," at Ells-
hich had been
impound Com-
de, Fungicide,


he product was not registered with the Secretary of Ari-


section 4 of
the labels
e'lient state
gredient sta
the product
lict stated,


the act.
affixed to the containers of the product did
ment, in that the active ingredients were not
tement.
was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
in part:


"CONTENTS 5 GALS."
*





Ed t
A
'40 ^


IMIIGTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICI DE


ACT IN. J., I. F. R.


the oil. Use an ordinary sprayer or sprinkling can, or any method
whereby the hogs can be given a good coat of the oil, particularly
around the ears and armpits, and other parts of the body where the
Smange or scurf is most noticeable.


* *


Hogs
the floo
eggs fro
For o
to the a


can be kept free of lice
r and walls of the hog
m hatching.
their farm animals affect
affected parts, preferable


housi


* also by the spraying of
e, which will prevent the lice


ed by mange or scurf; apply the oil
as spray.


It will be of great aid in repelling flies,"
which statements were false or misleading since the c
cans was less than 5 gallons and, when used as direct
Would not be one of the best agents known for the treaty
mange or scurf on hogs, horses, and cattle; (2) Would
lice on the an-mal indicated' 3) would not kill all bu
as implied by the abbrevi etaAt"; (4) would not de
hatching of eggs of fleas, tics, bugs, etc.; (5) would nu
mange on the domestic animals named; (6) would noi
hog lice from hatching; and *$ ld not be of great aid
On November 26, 1951, no n4$ant having appeared, a
and destruction was entered, it was ordered that the

78. Lack of required hnform on label, variance bet
registration aims, ad ation, and; nisbranding
fumed Disinfectant." Ha.yn Products Co
Plea of guilty. Fine ad certain costs. ( I
No. 16251.)


Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretc
States District Court a criminal informant
Hysan Products Company, a corporation,
ported the product interstate, from Chicag
the product was an economic oion with
It was alleged that the composition of t h
in connection with its registration under t hi
It was alleged that the labels on the co
a statement of the net weight r measure
required ky the act :
It was allege that the product was adult
fell below the professed standard or quali
it contained more than the 10 percent in
and contained& an inett ingredient (miner


ir
1(
o
0,
1
le


content of
ted, the


1e
no
gs
st
ot
t


nt an
t be
,ora
:roy a
cont
preve


d
a
ll
in
ro
nt


the 5-gallon
product: (1)
prevention of
sure cure for
other insects
d prevent the
1 all kinds of
the eggs of


in repelling all flies.
decree of confiscation
product be destroyed.

ween composition and
of "Pergerm The Per-
mpany, a corporation.
F. & R. No. 61. I. D.


showed
regis-
n that
of the
edient
which
stained
tat the


rict of


y of Agriculture, filed in the United
on in four counts alleging that the
n or about August 11, 1948, trans-
, Ill., to Fort Wayne, Ind., and that
the meaning of the act.
Product differed from that claimed


act.
ntainers of the product did not bear
of the contents of the containers as


terated ii
ty as exp
ert ingre(
al oil) in


n that


ts strength or purity


dressed on its labeling since
clients claimed on its labels
addition to the wnter ran-


An examination of the prodt, '"Pergerm The Perfumed Disinfectant," s
that its composition differed im that represented in connection with its
tration under the Federal In ticide, Fungicide, and IRodeuticide Act, i
the labels on the containers the product did not bear a statement
net weight or measure of the edtents of the containers, nor a proper ingr
statement as required by the a; that the product contained mineral oil
was not mentioned as an ingrdent on the labels; that the product con
more than the 10 percent of inrL ingredients claimed on the labels; and th
claims made on the labels weretherwise false and misleading.
On March 15, 1950, the United States Attorney for the Northern Dist


--




inIrII~I;,":D& I


77-133]


NOTICES


could not be relied u
trained an inert ingr
contained more than
On March 7, 1951,
court imposed a fine
plus certain costs.


ipon to d
edient in
10 percent
the defen
of $100


JUDGMENT


isinfect the places and article
addition to water, to wit, n
t inert ingredients.
dant corporation entered
on each of the four counts,


41

con-
(4)


les named;
mineral oil;


!a of guilty and the
or a total of $400,


79. Adulteration and misbrandingft "Bug-Ded Bedbu


iller." U. S. v. Boyle-


i.way, Inc. Plea of guilty Fine, $500. (I. F, R. No. 66. I. D. Nos.
18406, 18445.)
An examination of the product, "Bug-Deb Bedbug iller," showed that it
contained less than the cent of dichloro diphenyl tithloroethane claimed on
the labels affixed to th iners-of the product.
On February 14, 1954the United States Attorney the Southern District
of New York. acting u a report by the Secretary ofgriculture, filed in the
United States District urt, a criminal information 4n four counts alleging
- that, on or about Janay 5 1949, and january 7, 19, Boyle-Midway, Inc.,
shipped the product fre Jersey City, N. J., to New *rk, N. Y., and that the
product was an economto poison within the meaning ot the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodentiede Act.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated in that its strength or purity
fell below the professed standard or quality expressed on its labeling since
the product contained less than the 5 percent of dichlort diphenyl trichloroethane


claimed on its label.
at alleged that tse product
*mtaaners of the product con
leading since the labels claimed
diphenyl trichloroethany whereas
dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane.


On March 2, 1951, the defendant co
March 6, 1951, the court imposed a fil
total of $500.
80. Lack of registration, mbiranding,
v. Louis Herman, a individual,
tones. Plea of gui.ty Fine of
No. 19987.)


The product,
ticide Fungcideh
that its labeling
misleading, and
fessed standard
On ifirci 24,
Illinois, acting u
States District
doing business a


the def
to Aft


11, 1948
cago, I11l


"Moth-A-Teria,"
In count one,
Secretary of Agr
In count two,


was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
trained statements which were false and mis-
the product contained 5 percent of dichloro
the product contained less than 5 percent


)rpor tion entered a plea of guilty, and on
ne of $125 on each of the four counts, or a


and adulteration of "Moth-A-Teria." U. S.
doing business as Better Homes Labora-
$150 and costs. (I. F. & R. No. 69. I. D.


"Moth-A-Teria," was not registered under the Federal Insee-
., and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product showed
Sbore statements relative to the product which were false and
that thed length or purity of the product fell below the pro-
or quality pressed on its labeling.
1950, theUnited States Attorney for the Northern District of
pon a reprt by the Secretary of Agrleilture, filed in the United
Court at information against Lius :Herman, an individual,
s Better Homes Laboratories, alleging that, on or about August
endant shipped or delivered for shipment interstate, from Cht-
on, Mo., 12 1-quart containers of as bonomic poison, known as
in violation of the act.
it was alleged that thile product las not registered with the
culture as required by section 4 e act.
it was alleged that the produce a misbranded within the


meaning of the act, in thtt the being bore false and misleading statements


Th~


'B


I


E






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

teria and fungi; would destroy bacteria in hospitals and immunize fabric to
bacteria hicb cause decomposition and odors; would immunize fabrics to
bacteria growth would erm-proof handkerchiefs and so prevent communica-
tien of colds woald bacteria-proof rugs, home furnishings, clothing, cotton
goods, linehtm would bacteria-proof all wash: would kill air-borne disease-pro-
ducing bacteria on fabrics would destroy and prevent disease-producing bacteria
and athlete's foot; would ia teria-proof homes: and (2) that "Moth-A-Teria"
was to fabrics what pasteurization is to milk; and that socks dipped in "Moth-
A-Teria" would destroy and prevent athlete's foot.
It was alleged that the ritet was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling stated in part: "ACTIVE INGREDIENTS Mag-
nesium Silicofluoride 72 odium Fluosileate .505% Dr. Rampel's Perm-
aseptic .500% Inert Ingre tiens 8.270%" whereas the product contained less
than .725 percent of magnesium silicolneride,
It was alleged that the was further misbranded in that its label did
not bear a proper ingredif Etoetement as required by the act since the name
"Dr. RampePl's Perm-asepti? whi ewas stated in the ingredient statement on the
label as the name of an actietangredient, was a trade name which had not become
a common name for such ingredient, and since the term "Inert Ingredien t'
appeared in the ingredient statement on the label in smaller size type than tBe
term "Active Ingredients."
It was alleged that the prt was adulterated in violation of the act in that
its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality as expressed
on its labeling since the labeling stated in part: "ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Magnesium Silicofluoride .T25% ." whereas the product contained less than
0.725 percent of magnesium siticofluoride.
On October 25, 1950, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, and the court
imposed a fine of $150 and costs
81. Lack of required information on label and misbranding of "F'Tarmrite
Ro-Dust." U. S. v. Central Chemical Corporation of Lebanon, a corpora-
tion. Plea of nolo contenadere. Fine of $400. (I. F. & R. No. 70. I. D. No.
17477.)
An examination showed that the labels on some of the bags in a certain ship-
ment of the product, "Farmritd Ro-Dust," did not bear the name and address of
the manufacturer, registrant, br person for whom it was manufactured and the
labels on some of the bags in such shipment did not bear n proper ingredient
statement. The examination further showed that the product, when used as
directed on its labels or in accordance with commonly recognized practice, would
be injurious to the crops on which applied.
The United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, acting
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States District
Court an information against Central Chemical Corporation of Lebanon, of
Lebanon, Pa., alleging that on or about February 15, 1949, the defendant shipped
or delivered for shipment interstate, from Lebtnon, Pa., to Charlottesville, Va.,
600 4-pound bags of an economic poison, known as "Farmrite Ro-Dust," in
violation of the act.
In count one, it was alleged that the labels on some of the bags did not bear
the name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or of the person for whom
the product was manufactured, as required by the act.
In count two, it was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels
on some of the bags failed to bear an ingredient statement showing the name
of each active ingredient in the product, since the labels stated in part:






77-1331


NOTICES


OF JUDiGMENT





~iiEE""


UY ait was injurious to vertebrate amnimais ana vegetation, omter tan
west o which it was applied.
On October 5, 1950, nO claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
andtoYrfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy

of rest ration and misbranding of "StenidKleen The Block Type De-
ergent I. S. v. 2 325-pound containers, earth containing 325 pounds,
V2-pound container containing 125 pounds, and 1 125-pound container
containing 35 pound more or less, of "S4si-Kleen The Block Type De-
--~~~~~ ~ -. 14 .. a. a..a at -<-.** n.-W^ A.i .n--J^' --^ a^ S S' .--aj S_ *S -^ 2* ^^ ...... aS Z


In count three, it was alleged that the product was Sbranded in that the
product when used as directed on its label or in ac dance with commonly
recognized practice be injurious to the crops on wh applied.
On May 1, 1950, thedant entered a plea of nolo contender, and the court
imposed a fine of $50 ~ count one, $50 on count two, d 800 on count three,
or a total of $400..

82. Lack of required i nation label, and misbra g of "Cook's Chlordane
Emulsion Conce ate." US. v. 19 1-gallon cau and 13 5-gallon cans,
re or less, of "4ok's Chlordane Emulsion Concentrate." Default decree
of forfeiture and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 7t I. D. No. 17993.)
examination of product, "Cook's Chlordane Emulnsion Concentrate,"
6W hat the label afed to the containers of thtproduct did not include
a statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the containers;
tfat the labels did not include a warning or caution statement which was neces-
tr t., if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man and other
etdtate animals; and that the product, when used a# directed on its labels or
In accordance with commonly recognized practice, was injurious to vertebrate
animals and vegetation, other than weeds, to which it wis applied.
GO Wehruary 15, 1950, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
i tss acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricnliture, filed in the United
ates District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
S,1-gallon cans and 18 5-gallon cans, more or less, of "Gook's Chlordane
Emulsion Concentrate," at Kankakee, Ill., alleging that the product was an
nomi poison and an insecticide within the meaning of the Federal Insecticide,
fungicide, and Rodentieide Act and that, on or about July 23, 1948, it was
traasported interstate, by Cook Chemical Company, from Kansas City, Mo., to
Kakakee, Ill., in violation of the act.
x was alleged that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not
eply with the act in that they failed to bear a statement of the net weight or
measure of the contents of the containers.
The product was alleged 'to be misbranded in violation of the act in that the
labeling bore false and misleading statements which implied or represented that
the product would readily form an emulsion when mixed with water, and that
tlit when used as directed would be effective against grasshoppers, chig-
rs, ats, ticks, and certain lawn, shrubbery, agricultural, fruit, livestock, and
Industrial food plant insects, whereas the product would not readily form an
kimuTsion when mixed with water and would not be effective against the named
insects.
M wasa alled that the product was further misbranded in that its labels did
ot obtain a warning or caution statement which wae necessary and, if complied
twate to prevent injury to living man and other vertebrate animals, and
Sn that wn used as directed on its labels or in accordance with commonly recog-






INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


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


containing 125 pounds, and 1 125-pound container containing 35 pounds,
less, of "Steri-Kleen The Block Type Detergent," at Asheville, N. C., and
that the product was an economic poison which had been transported in
on or about October 26,t1949, by Edwards-Councilor, from Norfolk,
violation of the at.
It was alleged that the iutwas not registered with the Secretary
culture as required by sect the act.
It was alleged that th was misbrand in that the labels a
containers of the product I not bear Sn ingredient statement as req
the act,
On January 16, 1951, noc1amant having appeared, a decree of conde
and forfeiture was entered t was ordered that the product be deli
the County Commissionerp ancombe County, North Cardaina, fr
County Home or other pub stutions.

84, Lack of registration a3 b anding of "Jiffy Mist Aerosol Bombs
v. Bri-Test, Inc. Plea md rilty. Fine, $75. (I. F. & R. No. 83.


more or
alleging
iterstate,
Va., in

of Agri-


affixed to
uired by

nationn
vered to
isat thd


." U.S.
I. D. No.


20622.)


"Jiffy Mist Aeroit Bombs," was not register;t under the Iederal


Insecticide, Fungicide, and iRednticide Act.
showed that it contained only 1 percent dichloro
of the 2 percent claimed on its label.
On July 20, 1950, the United States Attorney
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary ofl
States District Court a criminal information in I


Inc., a c
state froi
economic
It was
culture a
It was
the label
trained 2


An examination of the product
diphenyl trichloroethane instead

for the Southern District of New
Agriculture, filed in the United
two counts alleging that Bri-Test,


corporation, on or about October 28, 1649, transported the porduct inter-
m New York, N. Y., to Washington, D. C., and that the product was an
poison within the meaning of the act.
alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
s required by section 4 of the act. :
alleged that the product was misbranded in that certain statements on
were false and misleading since they represented that the product con-
percent of dichloro dl henyl trichloroethane whereas the product con-


trained substantially less than percent of dichloro diphenyl triehloroethane.
On October 16, 1950, the defendant corporation entered a plea of guilty, and the
court imposed a fine of $75 to caer both counts.


85.*Lack of registration, lack 1of required information on label, and misbrandi
of "Tra-Fax Industrial Fioor Wax." U. S. v. Service Industries (A Trus
a common law trust. Plea of nolo contender. Fe of $100. (I. F. &
No 85. I D No 19429. )
The product, "Tra-Fax Industrial Floor Wax," was not registered as require
by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide AM. Esainination of t
product showed that the labels on its containers did no t the net weight
measure of the contents of the containers and did not bear an ingredient stall
meant as required by the act. The examination also disclosed that the label
of the product bore statements relative to the prod h were false
misleading.
On July 21, 1950, the United States Attorney for the astern District of Per
sylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of tltuire, filed in t
United States District Court an information against Service Indust ries ( A Trus
a common law trust, alleging tt, on or about June 23, 1949, the defend
shipped or offered for shipment interstate, from Philadelphia, Pa., to Lancast
JBU ~ ~~~~~~ -f- .^. ill'tf ... **.If *.^ ~ -w --


ng
t),
R.


In-
he
t),
int
er,


The product,


ES


" .""lil~i




0>
4:
>~
77-i SRi


wNmrrrn"ilf


crTTfn~alurrlfl"


each active ingredient, together with the name of eacjnd total percentage of
the inert ingredients, in the product.
The product was alleged to be further misbranded in that its labeling bore
statements relative to the product which were false or misleading, since the
label stated, in part: ALTO TRA-FAX, FORI FIEDL WITH STERYL
HAS 5 TIMES MO ERM KILLING POWER T CARBOLIC ACID,
IT IS SAFE TO IIANDLE," whereas the product wou not kill germs and did
not have five time mo m killing power than carboli i
On November 21, 19he defendant entered a plea o1 1oo contender, and the
court imposed a fine of on count one $25 'on count twa and $25 on count three
or a total of $100.

86, Ick of registrati oand required information on label and misbranding of
Oor-Ban Moth 0-B Cakes" and "Odor-Ban Eldetric Deodorizer." U. S.
SV 28 vials, moreur less, of 6 "Odor-Ban Moth Q-B Cakes" each, and 24
packages, more ot less, each containing 1 vial of "Odor-Ban Moth O-B
SaKes" and an "Odor-Ban Electric Deodorizer.l Default decree of con-
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & BNo. 86. I. D. No. 17359.)
1he products, "Odor-Ban Moth O-B Cakes" and "Odor4Ban Electric Deodorizer,"
were not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fpngicide, and Rodenticide
Act. An examination showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the
projniets did not bear a statement of net weight or measure of the contents of
tla eqntainers; and the labels did not bear an ingredient statement as required
Aprl 120, 1950, the United States Attorney for the southernn District of Ohio,
^ upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture filed in the United States
:14 Court a libel paying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 28
lais, more or less, of 6 "Odor-Ban Moth O-B Cakes" each, and 24 packages,
wqe less, each containing 1 vial of 6 "Odor-Baa Moth O-B Cakes" and an
(otain Electric Deoadorizer," at Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging that the products
1f ^ tonomnic poisons hich had been transported interstate, on or about No-
veber i 1949, by the Cauhorn Distributing Company, from Detroit Mich. in
tiT ilia fo the act.
t was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
clas required by section 4 of the act.
)S
twars alleged that the products were misbranded in that the labels attached
Wt, cpntainers of the products did not bear an ingredient statement giving
the name and percentage of each active ingredient, together with the total per-
~eih: te inert ingredients, in the products,. or an ingredient statement
) 4me of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the
& trder of the percentage of each present in each classification, together
1 th th talpercentage of the inert ingredients.
On August 2-14, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
ttrewas entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
deoy ge products.
8a. ding of "Airosol Insect Repellant and Miticide." U. S. v. 2,720
i e 4N containers, more or less, of "Airosol Insect Repellant and Miti-
8'fefault decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F.
& R. No. 89. I. D. No. 20377.)
An examination of the product, "Airosol Insect iRepellant and Miticide," showed
that its labeling bore statements relative to the product which were false and
misleading.






INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


RODENTICIDE


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


bup), harvest and babies mites, use as above, with special attention to socks,
shoes, inside and outside trouser cuffs and around other openings in clothes
to create a barrier against the insects. TO OPERATE DISPENSER: 1. Pull
tagged string to remove p tape and valve safety clip. 2. Hold atomizer
upright, close to and arrow pointing toward surface to be sprayed.
3. Release spray by sampl g the button. Net Contents: 12 fl. oz. OUT-
DOORl PROTION ro: Insect Repellant and Miticide, in automatic
atomizer, provides a nw enient method of effective outdoor protection
against annoying and biting insects," and "We guarantee this dispenser to be free
from defect and to contain ~bh quality ingredients, scientifeally compounded
to give effective results whi usea as directed," borne on the labels uf the product
implied or represented that thenet content of each of the containers was 12 fluid
ounces, that the product w n a as directed would spray on the surfaces and
articles named, that it was *atnmizer that it was free from defect, and that it
would provide a convenient of outdoor protection against annoying and
biting insects; whereas the ot itntent of each of the containers was less than 12
fluid ounces, and the produce lwen used as directed, would xot sprny on the sur-
faces and articles named, was not an atomizer, was not free from defect, and
would not provide a convenient method of outdoor protection against annoying
and biting insects.
On October 3, 1950, no clairant having appeared, the coutt entered a default
decree of condemnation and forfeiture, and it was ordered that the product te
destroyed.
^S
88. Variance between claims on label and registration representations, improper
net weight or measure statement, and misbranding of "SterileAir Triethyl-
ene Glycol" U. S. v. 14W it containers, more or less, of "SterileAir Tri-
ethylene Glycol" Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruc
tion. (I. F. & R. No. 93. I. D. No: 23805.)
An examination of the product, "SterileAir Triethylene Glyeol," showed l
the claims made for it on its label differed in substance from the representations
made in connection with its registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act; that the statement on its labels of the net weight or measure
of contents was not in terms of the largest unit present; and that the labels did
not contain a proper ingredient statement as required by the act.
On May 18, 1950, the United States Attorney for the Digtrict 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 confiscAation of 143 pint con-
tainers, more or less, of "SteripAir Triethylene Glycol,'~ t Wichita, Kans., al-
leging that the product was an economic poison which had been transported inter-
state, on or about August 6, 194, by the Sterile Air Corpofion of America, from
Kansas City, Mo., to Wichita, Kans., in violation of the ag.
The product was alleged to be in violation of the act itAt the claims made
for it on its label differed in substance from the represent tsos made in connec-
tion with its registration, and in that the statement of t weight or measure
of the contents borne by the labels on the containers of W product was not in
terms of the largest unit present.
The product was alleged to be miabranded within the mi of the net in that
the labels On its containers did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name
and percentage of each active ingredient, together witjotal percentage of
the inert ingredients in the product, or an ingredient st t giving the name
of each active ingredient, together with the name of eai total percentage of
the inert ingredients, in the product.
On August9, 1950, no claimant having appeared, the court entered n default


~b;iND






S77-133]


; ;I


NOTICES


tions for use, nor a warning or caution statement necessary for the protection
of the public.
off July 10, 1951, tie United States Attorney for thern District of
Illinois, acting upon a port by the Secretary of Agric te, filed in the United
States District Court 1 information against Associate Chemists, Inc., a corpo-
ration, and Arthur rebren, alleging that, on or ab t August 1, 1949, and
October 25, 1949, the attndants shipped from Bartlett, IL, to Valparaiso, Ind.,
10 400-pound drums "A-C Deodorol" an economic poison, in violation of
the act.
as alleged that th product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
as required by section 4 of the act.
as alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
1btainers of the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the
l i and percentage of each active ingredient, together with the total per-
cetage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement
v the name of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the
es ding order of the percentage of each present in each classification, to-
zethet-with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
tfrcontainers of the product did. not bear a warning or caution statement which
ws necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man
and other vertebrate animals.
Zt was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
containers of the product did not bear directions for use which were necessary
a~ complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
On March 12, 1952, the defendant, Arthur Srebren, entered a plea of nolo
eontedere, and the court ordered that the defendant be placed on probation for
sT period of 2 years.

Sit ck of registration of "P-51 Insect Spray with D. D. T." and "Sprayway
Meth Proofer." U. S. v. 622 12-ounce containers, more or less, of "P-51
Jnsect Spray with D. D. T.," and 46 11-ounce cans, more or less, of "Spray-
way Moth Proofr." Consent decree of condemnation and release under
bond. (I. F. & R. No. 100. I. D. Nos. 18082 and 18083.)


The products, "P-51 Insect Spray wi
ft^e," were not registered under the
totlentde Act.
Oanuly 19, 1950, the United States At
things :S a report by the Secretary of A
lriet Court a libel praying seizure for
oetMo e containers, more or less, of "P-
46 lt-Onee cans, more or less, of "Spra
Minn., alleging that the products were ec
J^JJtect|~^ stat tI AaMU oplA "-l "i
otbertate, on or about April 21, 195
ompa, from Chicago, Ill., in violation o:
It was alleged that the products were
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the a
Th l flt Products Co., of St. Paul, Mil
requested their release under bond for th
pliance with the act, and consented to e
*ebn* 14, 1951, a decree of condemnation
tjhe products be released to the claimant ur
l.i Tnlrl iS r

th D. D. T." and "Sprayway Moth
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
torney for the District of Minnesota,
Agriculture, filed in the United States
condemnation and confiscation of 622
-51 Insect iSpray with D T." and


yway Moth Proofer,"
onomic poisons which
0, and March 31, 1950,
f the act.
not registered with
ct. ..
n., claimed ownership
in., claimed ownership


at Minneapolis,
had been trans-
by the Tru-Pine

bhe Secretary of
) of the products,


e purpose of bringing them into cornm-
ntry of a condemnation decree. On
n was entered and it was ordered that
ider bond.


Snf "Piin OHn Tifkmnfet.smn" TtQT. v.


JUDGMENT






INSECTICIDE,


FUTTGICTDE,


AND


,P~NTICIDE 4. ~J.., I. F. R.


a libel prayingoseizure for condemnation and confiscation of 382 8-ounce bottles,
more or less, of "Pine gDisinfectant," at Camden, N. J., alleging that the
product was an economic Ijon which had been transported interstate, o
about June 1, 1950, by R Chemicals, from Philadelphia, ~., ia oatio
the act.
It was 'alleged that the product was not registered with the Sretaxy 4
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged further als the product was misbranded within l mean
of the act in that the labe% fixed to the bottles did not bear an igredip&
statement giving the name:ad percentage of each of the active< lnredietn,
together with total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the d ct a
ingredient statement giving the name of each of the active and each pt the inSt
ingredients, in the descenui0g order of the percentage of eaeh preset in .
classificration, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients; in
the product.
On September 29, 1950, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condepa-
tion and forfeiture was entered~ and it was ordered that the product be destr


92. Lack of registration and misbranding of "Saf T Sur Mix."
50-pound bags, more wr less, of "Saf T Sur Mix." Default
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 1
21105.)


U. S. v. US
decree of emn
0L3, I. NO.


The product, "Saf T Sur Mix," was not registered under the Federal Insdeti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product showed
that the labels affixed to the bags did not bear an Ingredient statement as required
by the act.
On August 28, 1950, the United States Attorney for the Western Distrfet f
Washington, 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 116 50-pound bags, more or less, of "Saf T Sur Mix," at Seatl,
Wash., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been trans-
ported interstate, on or about June 28, 1950, by the Sat T Sur Products Cot-


portion, from Franklinville, N. Y., min violation of the
It was alleged that the product was not registered
culture as required by section 4 of the act.


;act.
with the Secretary of Agri-


It was alleged further that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labels affixed to the bags did not bear an ingredient state-
ment giving the name and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together
with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the pfreduct, or an ingredient
statement giving the name of each of the active and each the inert ingredients
in the descending order of the percentage of each preset in each classificatk
together with the total percentage of the inert ingredient, in the product.
On June 18, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a decrt ot condemnation an
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the prodt be destroyed.
93. Lack of registration and required information on lw b ,misbranding, and
adulteration of "Pine Tree Disinfectant," "5% D. Insecticide," "New-
ark Coal Tar Disinfectant," and "Newark Pine infectant." U. S
v. Crystal Chemical Company, a partnership. Plea of guilty. FineE
$500 on first count; suspended fines on other counts. (I. F. & R. No. l.
I. DT Nos. 18528, 18529, 18530, and 18531.)
The product, "Pine Tree Disinfectant," was not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product
ahurad that h +banhe Ffnicid, o t ha onn+nhia nf tho lrnnrn di rt t nit hnoar tha


;:"~";;"




r
~
'7'L-1RR1


rrman~tinncrn


U .,* j J, -, --a W I I W' S M ,y^LA*uu ,J. JLA.

the containers did not bear an ingredient statement; that claims made on the
labels were false or misleading; and that the product contained substantially less
than the 5 percent D. claimed on the label.
The product, "New Coal Tar Disinfectant," was t registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the
product showed that e labels affixed to the contain of the product did not
state the net weight or measure of the contents of the cp ntners; that the labels
affixed to the contain did not bear an ingredient sta ment; and that claims
made on the labels we *lse or misleading.
The product, "Newak Pine Oil Disinfectant," was n.t registered under the
Federal Insecticide, P gcide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination showed
that the labels affixed tbthe containers of the product did not bear an ingredient
statement; that the strength or purity of the product tell below the professed
standard or quality user which it was sold; and that ims made on the labels
were false and misleading.
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
San information alleging that the Crystal Chemical Coupany, a partnership, on
.or about January 5, 190, December 12, 1949, December 1949, and January 10,
1950, respectively, transported the above-named products interstate, from New
York, N. Y., to Newark, N. J., and that each of the products was an economic
poison within the meaning of the act.
It was alleged that none of these products were regi tered with the Secretary
ofAriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
Iwas alleged that the product, "Pine Tree Disinfectant," lacked the required
information on the labels affixed to the containers of the product in that such
did not bear the name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or the
person for whom the product was manufactured.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that the labels aS xed to the containers of the product did not bear an
ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of each of the active in-
gredients, together with total percentage of the inertAinredients, in the product,
of an ingredient statement giving the name of each of the active and each of the
" inert ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each present in each
t &nT, together ith total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the
product It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that certain
St onthe labels were false or misleading since they represented that
the product: (1) When used as directed could be relied upon to disinfect; (2)
was safe and (3) contained less than 35 percent inert ingredients, whereas the
poduc (1) When used as directed could not be relied upon to disinfect; (2) was
not safe; afid (3) contained more than 35 percent inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated in that its strength or purity
Sbeow the professed standard or quality as expressed on its labeling since it
oti&nemore than the 35 percent inert ingredients claimed on its labels.
Itw alleged that the labels on the containers of the product, "5% D. D. T.
Insecticide," did not bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the contents
s required by the act.
a(llged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
The cofltainers of the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the
aenain ai percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement
giving the name of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the
descending order of thle percentage of each presemtn each classification, together
with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, the product.


NCI'PTI1BR"






INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


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


It was alleged that the product, "Newark Coal Tar Disinfectant," did not have
a e to f mnuediate containers a label bearing a statement of the net weight
or measure of the contents as required by the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that labels affixed to the
containers of the product tid not bear an ingredient statement giving the name
and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with total percentage
of the inert ingredie s, if the product, or an ingredient statement giving the
name of each of th acti ah of the inert ingredients in the descending
order of the percentage of a present in each elassifleation, together with total
percentage of the inert in Ims, in the product.
It was alleged that the m o~ twas further misbranded in that certain state-
ments on the labels were false or misleading since they represented that the
product when used as dir hold be relied upon to disinfect the places and
articles named on its label wheas such product when used as directed could
not be relied upon to disinfect the places and articles named on its label.
It was alleged that the ~p "Newark Pine Oil Disinfectant," was mis-
branded 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 per-
centage of each of the active $ eients, together with total percentage of the
inert ingredients, in the prtidut, or an ingredient statement giving the name
of each of the active and eah f the inert ingredients in the descending order
of the percentage of each present in each classification, together with total per-
centage of the inert ingredients in the product.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that certain state-
ments on the labels affixed to the containers of the product were false or mis
leading in that they represented that the product when used as directed could
be relied upon to disinfect the places and articles and destroy the germs or
vermin named on the labels, and that the product was a pine oil disinfectant,
whereas the product when used as directed could not be elied tUpon to disinfect
the places and articles and destroy the germs and vermin named on the labels,
and the product was not a pineToil disinfectant.
It was alleged that thy prodtet was adulterated in that its strength or purity
fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold since the
labeling on the containers of the product stated in part "Pine Oil Disinfectant,"
whereas commercial standards (Commercial Standard CS 69-38) require a pine
oil disinfectant to contain not less than 60 percent of steam distilled pine oil
by weight, and not more than 10 percent of water by weight, and the product
when shipped in interstate commerce contained substamially less than 60 percent
of steam distilled pine oil by Weight, and substantially are than 10 percent


of water by weight.
On April 25, 1951, the
formation and to suppress
court held:
"The defendants


too vague, indefinite,


Crystal Chemical
the evidence. In


Company mov to
denying the efedu


contend that this statute is in


I


obscure and uncertain


to the Secretary of Agriculture the
stitute a crime without setting up a
the Secretary.
"An inspection of the statute shol
without merit. The defendants ar
Title 7, United States Code; Sections
135a (a) (2) (e), 135a (a) (5), an


power to
standard


ws clearly
e charged
185, 1I5a
d 134b, in


an 'economic poison' with the Secretary of Ag
'economic poison' was misbranded and adultera-


t


determine
or policy
that these
s 1
(n3) 1),
that they
riculture
ed and no


dismiss the in-
at's motion, the

) because it is


a use


it delegates


e what shall con-
to be followed by
;e contentions are
lly with violating
a135i (a r e2) a),
failed to register


an
ti


Id
iro


that the said
nerlv aInhbeled







?JATTflER


iT~tb(mEWTr


iy a :j'a.- -f-j K *1* w --^^-i W .a~^ .-'-- --- -* ** W, p-.

label are the words 'An Effective Bepellant To In t' ad Vermin'. Tha,
the label itself shows clearly that the product in question was an economicc
S- poison' within the meaning of Section 135 of the statute; i. e., that it was
'a substance o mixture of substances intended preventing, destroying,
Repelling, or mflgatlng insects, fungi *1
iAM 'Moreover, the Secretary of Agriculture has d a regulation which
specifically proves that a 'disinfectant' is a 'fu wicide' and therefore an
economic poisou 7 C. F. R. (1949 ed.) Section 152
e- "The Secretar was authorized to issue this reglation by Title 7, United
iStates Code, Setion 135.
"The Congress could delegate this power. Ya -e v. United States, 321
U S. 414. The statute set forth the necessary policy and standard to be
followed.
"This construction, followed since the statute's enactment, is entitled to
A great weight as a construction of the scope of the statute by the agency
i administering the provisions of the statute and expert in its meaning.
~$priCng City Focndry Go. v. Comm. of Internal Revenue, 292 U. S. 182
S-(1934) ; Bowles v. Seminoie Rook & Sand Co., 325 8. 410 (1945).
"The regulation is reasonable and logical. Funk and Wagnall's New
SStandard Dictionary of the English Language defines 'disinfectant' as
follows:


'* a substance used to disinfect or to
infectious and contagious diseases *'


~rr.


destroy


germs


It is obvious that a disinfectant is the type of substance that the Congress
Intended to be covered by this statute and is an 'economic poison'.
"The defendants also contend that the exceptions set forth in the stat-
ute [Section 13&a], 'except viruses on or in living men or other animals',
should have been alleged in the information. McKelvey v. United States,
2q0 U. S. 353, clearly refutes this contention.
"The defendants also claim that the information is invalid since it
id2 not state that the shipments in question were made in interstate corn-
iee. However, the information did state that 'at the Southern District
Npw York, Samuel Weinreb and Joseph Zimmerman, the defendants,
Sdgeliver for shipment to M. Halper and Sons, Newark, New Jersey'.
lat is sufficient Tatue v. United States, 110 F. (2nd) 555.
S"The defendantS also move to suppress any and all evidence obtained
y the Government as a result of the inspection made of defendants' books
21d4 records by agents of the Department of Agriculture.
"T7he statute [Title 7, United States Code, Section 135c] requires anyone
sflnag in 'economic poisons' to allow agents of the Department of Agri-
iture to have access to their records. The labst sentence of this section
podes:


'Notwithstanding this provision, however, the specific evidence ob-


S' gained under this section shall not be used in a
.of the person from whom obtained.'
: y. must obe noted that just the specific evidence
section itself is not to be so used. The CGovernent
have any such information. This statute does not
eiedeiee obtained frrm visits to consignees, et, ev
add a S.to nf thn ennjirn# was nbhtn.inad thinnph


criminal prosecution


obtained
says that
preclude
mn though
inRnpotinr


at the in-
it does not
the use of
the name,
ths hAnkS


* .*,


"EEX:EEEE






82 INBSECTICIDE FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT [N. J., I. F. .
Jr *j9' ...^-... ^. .- J ., I.F..

94. Composition different from that represented in connection with registration,
misbranding, and adulteration of "The Rocket Aerosol Insecticide Atom-
izer.: u. a. v. 117, more or less, of "The Rocket Aerosol Insecticide
Atomizer." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
(I. F. &B. No.105. 4 na847 .)
An examination of the product, "The Rocket Aerosol Insectici Atomizer,"
showed that its composition differed from the composition as represented in
connection with its registration, that it was mtslmanded within the iieaning 6?
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and 4I adult
ated within the meaning ot act. K
On August 29, 1980, the nifed States Attorney for the Northern District of
Indiana, acting upon a reprt by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis-
trict Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 117,
more or less, of "The Rokea t Aerosol Insecticide Atomizep'" at Pert Wayne,
Ind., alleging that, on or aboutuly 7, 1950, the product wan. transported inter-
state by Associated Chemis#s, Inc., from Bartlett, Ill., in jilationao rthe'aC
SIt was alleged that the product was an economic poison within the meaning
of the act and that its copition differed from the coif ition rapresent
in connection with its registrati under the act.
It was also alleged that t product was misbranded the meaning "t
the act in that its labeling bore statements, relative to the ingredients of the
product, which were false or misleading since the labeling stated in part:
"Ac VE INGREDIENTS


D. D. T. Dichlorodiphbyltricbloroethane.
P y r e t hi r i nt s - -
IP r .
Piperonyl Butoside*
Petroleum Distillate 1 -- -
Aromatic Petroleum Der native Solvent .... ....
* ( (Butyl Carbityl) (6-Propyl Piperonyl) Ether and related eo lunmds.)


Percent


1.60

8. 00


1'-IRT INGREDIENTS
PEropellants ....- ...-_.... ..... .. O. .0~
whereas the product contained als than 3.00 percent diebhloro diphenyl trichloro-
ethane, less than 0.20 percent pyrethrins, leas than 1.60 percent piperonyl
butoxide ((Butyl Carbityl) (6-propyl Piperonyl) Ether and related compounds),
and more than 80.00 percent inetingredients.
The product was lUeged to be adulterated witin the mn itngof the act in that
its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality as expressed
on its labeling since the labeling bore the statements quol edabove, whereas the
product contained less than 3.00 percent dichoro diphe hloroethane, less
than 0.20 percent pyrethrins, less than 1.60 percent piperonyl butoxide ((Butyl
Carbityl) (6-Propyl Piperonyl) Ether and related compounds) and more than
80.00 percent inert ingredients.
On November 10, 1950, no claimant having appeared, the court entered a default
decree of condemnation and fotfbttfre, and it was orde that the product be
destroyed.


95. Lack of registration and msbranding of "Fumigas." U. S. v.
taming 55 gallons, more ess, of "Fumigas." Default de
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 107
91 17t-I^ ^1S^~*


1 drum con-
cree of con-
. I. D. No.


0


:: E~







77-133]


NOTICES


.Tt1ltWhla w


.--.... *"-- -* -- B^^ -n 1,- HM M- ihn -*--- aw. qJ .^M. af

product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or
about August 15,1950, by the Interstate Chemical Company, from Spokane, Wash.,
i 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 tle product was misbranded in tha the label affixed to the
container of the product did not contain an ingredient s t giving the name
and percentage of ea e ingredient, together with he total percentage of
the inert ingredients. itfthe product, or an ingredient s ent giving the name
of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients IIthe descending order
of the percentage press I each classification, together the total percentage
of the inert ingredients, the product. 1
It was alleged that product was misbranded iU that the statement
"FUMIGAS FUMiGAS IS MADE FOR THE TROL OF WEEVIL
AND OTHER STOREt INSECTS FOUND IN GRAIN. FUMIGAS WILL NOT
HARM GRAIN AND A BE APPLYED DIRECT. STY ABOVE PRODUCT
. AT ALL TIMES WHE FUMIGATING AS FUMIGAS WENETRATES DOWN-
WARD. AVOID INHALING FUMES SHAKE UP BBL ELL BEFORE EACH
RUN OFF. REORDfl FROM INTERSTATE CHEMICAL CO 2724 DE
SMET SPOKANE WASH" borne on the label was falnand misleading in that
it represented that the product, when used as directed, would control weevil and
other stored grain insects, whereas the product, when used as directed, would
not control such insects.
On May 19, 1951, no cliinant having appeared, a decee of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
96. Lack of registration, failure of label to bear statement of net weight or
measure of content, misbranding, and adulteration of "Cleaning Compound
Coef. 5+." U. S. 3 55-gallon drums, 2 30-gallon drums, and 10 5-gallon
drums, more or less, of "Cleaning Compound Coef. 5+' Consent decree
of condemnation ai release under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 108. I. D. No.
23716.)


The product.
Federal Insecti
product showed
statement of ne
the product was
the containers i
centage of each


of the inert


names


of ea


percentage of th
misbranded in ti
necessary and, ii
the product was
pound Coef. 5+'
it had a phenol c


within
professe
On O.
A'abam
Court a
drums,


A I


"'leaning Compound Coef. 5+," was not registered under the
cidle. Furgicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the
rh.at rlie bels on the containers of the product did not bear a
t whri.t or measure of the content as required .by the act; that
misbhnirded within the meaning of the act in that the labels on
did nnt er an ingredient statement giving the name and per-
of the active ingredients, together with the total percentage


ingredients. nl the product, or an ingredient-statement giving the
ch ictive ingredient, together with the name of each and total


Sinert
hat irs
f c,,mp
filrthlie
o hi.ri
oefficie


twe meanintr o
d standard or q
october 5, 195.)0,
a, acting upon a
libel praying.s
2 30-gallon lnru
..A r^-S rT I --


ingredient
labeling
ied. with,
r ,aisbra
Implied
nt of less


f


tle act


ts, in the product; that the product was further
did not contain directions for use which were
adequate for the protection of the public; that
nded in that the label stated: "Cleaning Corn-
that it had a phenol coefficient of 5-j- whereas
than 5+; and that the product was adulterated
in that its strength or purity fell below the


quality under which it was sold.
t he United States Attorney itfor the Middle District of
report by the Secretary of Agilultnre, filed in the District
Seizure for condemnation ac eonflscation of 3 55-gallon
mis, and 18 5-gallon drur' moke or less, of "Cleaning
a- tffa.A.flflW^k-h.JHfleW A In nif~l an4 ns 4L.n:4f jllJk .n. J.WI a- Knn~f4. A n aq^^Pn-( I1a


iilC[






INSECTICIDE,


V WG WIE I


AND .RODENTICI DE


ACT LN. J., I. F. R.


giving the name of each apyeebredient, together with t he n
toptl percentage of the lt ingredients, in theproduct: its
contain directions for use ich were necessary and, if complied
for the protection of the wie and the label stated "Cleaning
5+" which implied that the roduct had a phenol coefficient of 5-
a phenol coefficient of less ban 5+.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated within the m
in that its strength or purity t below the professed standard
which it was sold. /
Bayou Industries, Inc., Arabi, La., claimed ownership of
quested its release under bad for the purpose of bringing it into
the act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree.
1950, a consent decree of condemnation was entered, and it wai
product be released to the claiant under bond.


name of each and
labeling did not
;d with, adequate
SCompound Coef.
j-, whereas it had


meaning of the act
or quality under

the product, re-
compliance with
On November 1,
s ordered that the


97. Lack of registration and misbranding of "Terminix." t. S. v. 70 55-ga
drums, more or less of "Terminix." Consent decree of condemn
and release under bond, (I. F. & R. No. 109. I. D. No. 17716.)
The product, "Terminix," was not registered under the Federal Insecti
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, An examination showed that the product
misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its labels did not bear a pr
ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of each active ingred
together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, o
ingredient statement giving the names of each of the active and each of the i
ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each present in 4
classification, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in
product, as required by the act.
On October 17, 1950, the United States Attorney for the Northern Distric
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation o
55-gallon drums, more or less, of "Terminix," at San Francisco, Calif., allei
that, on or about September 11, 1950, the product was transported interstate
the E. L. Bruce Co., from Memphis, Tenn., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was an economic poison within the meaning
the act and had not been registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as requ
by section 4 of the act.


It
in t
per
ine
eac]
pern
oft
E
its]
and
con
the

98.


llon
tion

side,
WHS
oper
ient,
r an
nert
each
the


t of
the
f 70
going
, by

g of
ired


t was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
hat its labels did not bear a proper ingredient statement giving the names and
centage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage of the
rt ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement giving the names of
Sof the active and each of the inert ingredients in the descending order of the
ntchp"""tg t W x "^to ...... a
ceptage of each present in each classification, together th the total percentage
he inert ingredients, in the product, as required by the act
I. L. Bruce Co., of Memphis, Tenn., claimed ownership o oduct, regs
release under bond for the purpose of bringing it into e with
consented to the entry of a condemnation decree, O ember 13, 1950 a
sent decree of condemnation was entered, and it was o the couria
product be released to the claimant under bond.

Lack of registration, failure of labels to bear a statement of net weight or
measure of the content, and misbranding of "Ramelli Pine Oil." U. S. v.
2 55-gallon drums, more or less, of "Ramelli Pine Oil." Default decree of


condemnation and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 110T. D.
rT. lrldne "UniTnnil Pins Cbil "ft u wns nt rwnisanAd iinnAir thp


4 KK


No. 23742.)


Pbantnl *tnat


)
S






NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


AlMama, acting up report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
District Court a libel ng seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 2 55-
gthn drums, more ss, of "Ramelli Pine Oil," at Ttisloosa, Ala., alleging
tbatl on or about July j1950, and October 3, 1950, the product was transported
a te, by Rudolph inelll, Inc., from New Orleans, IA., in violation of the act.
a alleged that :e product was an economic poispn within the meaning
.t act and had Mt been registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as
required by section 4o e act.
s alleged that He labels on the product did not bear a statement of net
W ^or measure of tbe content.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
aq that its labels dd not bear an ingredient statement giving the name
a prcentage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage of
t nort ingredients, in.the product, or an ingredient statement giving the name
of eaph active ingredient, together with the name of each and total percentage
of the tert ingredients, in the product.
On November 21, 1950, no claimant having appeared, the court entered a decree
of condemnation, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


Lack of registration and lack of required
Liquid Rosin Wood Preserver." U. S.
cans, more or less, of "Pinola Liquid
decree of condemnation and release
I. D. No. 23739.)


information on the label of "Pinola
v. 89 1-gallon cans and 49 5-gallon
Rosin Wood Preserver." Consent
under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 111.


The product, "Pinola Liquid Rosin Wood Preserver," was not registered under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the
product showed that the labels affixed to the containers did not bear a statement
of the net weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
On October 16, 1950, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Alabama, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court a Hlibel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 89 1-gallon cans and 49 5-gallon cans, more or less, of "Pinola Liquid Rosin
Wood Preserver," at Cdllman, Ala., alleging that the product was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate, on or about March 3, 1950, March
8, 1950, and August 1, 1950, by Pinola Products, Inc., from Savannah, Ga., 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 lacked the required information on its labels
in that the labeling on the containers did not bear a statement of the net weight
or measure of the contents of the containers.
Pinola Products, Inc., of Savannah, Ga., claimed ownership of the product,
Requested its release under cash bond for the purpose of bringing the product
into compliance with the act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation
decree. On December 11, 1950, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it
was ordered that the condemned product be released to the claimant under bond.


10, ack of
S.
No. 11
The proda


registration and misbranding of "Miracle
v. 70 1-pint cans, more or less, of "Miracle
it decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
2. I. No. 21829.)
. "Miracle 49 Screwworm Remedy." was


49 Screwworm Remedy."
49 Screwworm Remedy?"
destruction. (I. F. & R.


not registered under the


federal In.sediclde, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the


,,,


i x ~1


Y, --






INSECTICIDEI,


ISE


AND RODENTICIDE


ACT [N. J.. F. R.


It was alleged that t rdut was mibran in that the labels affixed to
the containers of the product did not bear an Ingredient statement giving the
name and percentage df ch active ingredisft, together with the total per-
centage of inert ingre in the product or an ingredient statement
giving the name of eachfi tb tetive and each of the inert ingredients in the
descending order of the Setage of each parent in each classification, to-
gether with the total pe e of the Inert ingredients, in the product.
On January 31, 1951, no lAamant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered;and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.
101. Lack of registration, tibranding, and adulteration of "Cetylcide Germi-
cidal Concentrate Bmr Istrument Disifeetion." U. S. v. 113 boxes, each
containing 8 10-cc. ames, more or less, of "Cetylcide Germicidal Con-
centrate For Instrument Disinfection." Default decree of condemnation,
confiscation, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 113. I. D. No. 18724.)
The product, "Cetylcide Germncidal Concentrate For Instrument Disinfection,"
was not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act. An examination showed that the product was misbranded within the
meaning of the act in that the afbeling bore reference to registration under the
act as follows: "U. S. REG. APPL. FOR" and "TU. S. REG'N. APPL'D. FOR."
The examination showed that the product was further misbranded within the
meaning of the act in that the labeling stated, in part:


"ACTIVE


INGREDIENTS


Cetyl Dimethyl Ethyl Ammonium Bromide-_-_.---__.
Isopropyl Alcohol -.. __ -.-.- -_ .----:---. .-... -_ _
INERT INGREDIENTS------------------ -


Percent
13
13
74"


whereas the product contained less than 13 percent of cetyl dimethyl ethyl am-
monium bromide and contained another active ingredient, Alkyl (CH,7 to C&H3r)
Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride, which was not named in the ingredient
statement; the carton label stated: "THIS PACKAGE CONTAINS EIGHT
AMPULES OF APPROX. 10 cc. EACH" which was indefinite and may have been
misleading; the labeling stated, in part, "NONTOXIC," that the product was
a sterilizing solution, and that when used as directed it conid be relied on to
sterilize instruments, kill anaerobic spore-forming bacteria uch as Cl. sporogenes
or disinfect in the presence of clotted blood, whereas the product was not a
sterilizing solution, was not nontoxic, and when used ap directed could not be
relied on to sterilize instruments, kill anaerobic spore-ftmiug bacteria such as
Cl. sporogenes or disinfect in the presence of clotted b o. The product was
adulterated within the meaning of the act in that atE ingredient, Alkyl
(COsHM to OCHa) Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride was substituted wholly
or in part for the cetyl dimethyl ethyl ammonium bromid lared to be present
in the product.
On November 3, 1950, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court
a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 113 boxes, each
containing 8 10-cc. ampules, more or less, of "Cetylcide Germicidal Concentrate
For Instrument Disinfection," at Washington, D. C., alleging that, on or about
August 14, 1950, the product was transported interstate, by Cetylite Industries,
Inc., from New York, N. Y., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was an economic poison within the meaning
..0 LL_. .n nt -, 3 Is.,- -- A- 4._t-. _- _. !A..JL^-. .3. --a-I .... ._ tt C. _- a ..-- U A ~, : n1 4.. ^ .-n a






7T-188] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 57

whereas the product contained less than 13 percent of c>disnethyl ethyl am-
monium bromide and Btained another active ingredient, (Car to CiaHa)
Dimethyl Benzyl A nm Chloride, which was not n in the ingredient
statement: the carton label stated: "THIS PACKAGE CONTAINS EIGHT AM-
PULES OF APPROX. 10 cc. IDACH" which was indefigjWad may have been
misleading; the labeling stated, in part, "NONTOXIC," that the product was a
sterilizing solution, aifnd that when used; as directed t i!d be relied on to
sterilize instruments, naerobic spore-forming bacterisuch as C1. sporogenes
or dTisinfect in the presence of clqted blood, whereas product was not a
sterilizing solution, w not nontoxic, and when used .as directed could not
be relied on to steriligcp truments, kill anaerobic sporeforming bacteria such
as Cl. sporogenes or d ect in the presence of clotted blood.
The product was ad to be adulterated within th& meaning of the act in
t Paranother ingredient, Alkyl .(C8HI to COsH,) Dimetyl, Benzyl Ammonium
Chloride was substitute4iwholly or in part for the cetyl disphttyl ethyl ammonium
bi, declared to be present in the product.
Oflecember 13, 195npo claimant having appeared, the gourt entered a decree
- of condemnation and sonfscatirn, and it was ordered& that the product be
destroyed.


oil
dane."


lbs produ
Federal Inse(
Os INoveml
of Mississipp
aop Unted S
confiscation
"Retox Conta
an economic
28, 1950, by t


registration of "Retox Containing Lindane". U.
Sand 118 4-ounce bottles, more or less, of "Retox
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
z R. No. 114. I, DI). No. 23758.)
ct, "Retox Containing Lindane," was not regisi
ticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.


be3
Ii,
ta
of
in:
p.":
h(


r 3, 1950,. the United States Attorney for the N
acting un: a report by the Secretary of Agri
tes District Court a libel praying seizure for co]
120 2-ogunce bottles and 118 4-ounce bottles, 1
ling Lindase," at Columbus, Miss., alleging that t
,ison which had been transported interstate, on (
e Re-Mark Chemical Co., Inc., from Mitami, Fla.,


S. v. 120 2-ounce
Containing Lin-
and destruction.


tered


under


northern District
culture, filed in
ademnation and
lore or less, of
he product was
)r about August
in violation of


the act.
It was alleged that the.product had not been registered with the Secretary
of Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On October 1, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, amd4 the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.

103. Lack of registration and misbranding of "Ya-De The 5 Year Guaranteed
Mothproof." U. S. va 19, 1-gallon bottles, more or less, of "Ya-De The
HP'" Y|~ Guaranteed Mothproof." Default decree of condemnation, for-
4tr 4 and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 115. I. D. No. 22989.)
|The product, "Ya-De The 5 Year Guaranteed Mothproof," was not registered
under the Federal Insecticide, fungicide,.and Rodenticide Act. An examination
Showed that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that the
ingredient statement on the labels of tbe product was not printed in type of such
^ size that it would be likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual
under customary conditions of purchase and use.
On November 10, 1950, the United States Attorney frr the Northern District
of Oklahoma, acting upon a report by the Secretwg ot Agriculture, filed in the
District Court a libiel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation, of
19 one-slnnmu hntlou mnra ew 1cm At "Vsi-fla ivho 'Pbc lC.aniviioantnd u nmn


IN






INSECTICIDE,


NGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


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


On November 27, 1950, n d aimant having appeared, the court entered a decree
of condemnation and forfd eire, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
104. Lack of registration and misbranding of "Dixie Klenit O(qarless Toilet
Renovator and Cleanser." U. S. v. 1 50-pound drum, ore or less, of
"Dixie Klemm Odorless Toilet Renovator and Cleanser." Consent decec
of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & U. No. 116. I. D.
No. 23760.)
The product, "Dixie Klemm Odorless Toilet Renovator and Cleanser," was not
registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act An
examination of the labeling showed 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 an ingredient sttemnient
giving the name of each active ingredient, together with the name of each and
total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
On November 8, 1950, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of


Mississippi, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
50-pound drum, more or less, of "Dixie Klemm Odorless Toilet Renovator
Cleanser," at Greenwood, Miss., alleging that, on or about July 19, 1950,
product was transported interstate, by the Dixie Chemical Products Co., I
from Birmingham, Ala., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was an economic poison within the meaning
the act and had not been registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as requ
by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
in that its labels did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and
centage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage of the i
ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement giving the name of e
active ingredient, together with the name of each and total percentage of
inert ingredients, in the product.
On February 23, 1951, the Dixie Chemical Products Co., Ltd., of Birmingh
Ala., having waived objections to forfeiture, the court entered a decree of
demnation and forfeiture, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


the
and
the
Ltd.,

gof
ired
act
per-
aert
iach
the


am,
con-


105. Lack of registration and required information on labels and misbranding
of "Spra-White Liquid Insecticide." U. S. v. 98 5-gallon cans, more or
less, of "Spra-White Liquid Insecticide." Consent decree of condemna-
tion and release under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 117. I. D. No. 18117.)
The product, "Spra-White Liquid Insecticide," was not registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the
product showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not
bear a statement of net weight or measure of the contents of the containers and
lid not bear an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On November 7, 1950, the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Wisconsin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confis-
cation of 98 5-gallon cans, more or less, of "Spra-White Liquid Insecticide," at
Madison, Wis., alleging that the product was an economic ison which had been
transported interstate, on or about May 15, 1950, by the rry Seed Company,
from Clarinda, Iowa, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act.





I~iiI


77-133]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


It was alleged that the product was an economic poison within the meaning
act and had not been registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as
reqired by section 4 of the act.
ifl was alleged that the labels affixed to the containers of the product failed
t0ler a statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
Sa Houston Co., of Talladega, Ala., claimed ownership tof the product,
quested its release under bond fdr the purpose of bringing it into compliance
Bthe act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On March
1951, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered by the court, and
It wa ordered that the product be released to the claimant under bond.
107. Misbranding and adulteration of "Flipo Special Screen and Outdoor Spray."
TU. S. v. 191 1-quart bottles and 168 1-pint bottles, more or less, of "F'Tlipo
Special Screen and Outdoor Sprav." Default decree of condemnation and


Destruction. (I. & R. No. 119.
An examination of the product, "Fl
OW that it was misbranded within
tfmgelide, and Rodenticide Act in that
pdet stated, in part:


I. D. No. 23740.)
ipo Special Screen and Outdoor Spray,"
the meaning of the Federal Insecticide,
the labels affixed to the containers of the


"25% DDT
CONCENTRATE


* *


Dichloro diphenyl Trichloroethane (DDT, Setting Point 89 C.
aMinimum) --- ---- 25% by wt."

whereas the product contained less than 25 percent dichloro diphenyl trichio-
(DOT). The examination also showed that the product was adul-
2 te& within the meaning of the act in that its strengtlor purity fell below the


professed standard or quality under which it was sold.
On Jahuaty 5, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
--. -- -. / C-- _.~..... A

to the entry of a condemnation decree. On December 11,i 1950, a decree of
condemnation was ed, and it was ordered that t product be released
to the claimant under bond.
106. Lack of registrdkn and failure of labels to bear a statement of net weight
or measure olthe contents of the containers of "100-S Houston's Rote-
none Mixture U. S. v. 10 100-pound bags, 7 50-pound bags, and 15 25-
pound bags, more or less, of "100-S Houston's Retenone Mixture." Con-
sent decree of condemnatipn, forfeiture, and release under bond. (I. F
c& No 118. ED. No. 19601. )
T^e product, "100-8 Houston's Rotenone Mixture," was not registered under
ral Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination showed
TiHat the labels affixed to the containers of the product failed to bear a statement
of Lhe net weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
On November 15, 1950, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of


Tennessee, acting
District Court a
10 100-pound bags,
tn's Rotenon
17, 1950, and
Houston Co.,


upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
7 50-pound bags, and 15 25-pound bags, more or less, of "100-S
e Mixture," at Morristown, Tenn., alleging that, on or about
May 29, 1950, the product was transported interstate, by the
from Talladega, Ala., in violation of the act.






INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


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


Th o04Awtw.s alleged to be adulterated within the meaning of the act in
tlwti u st od purity fell below the profe~ tandard or quality as ex-
pressed on its labeling sins its labels bore the statement, quoted above, which
implied or represented tha product contained 25 percent dichloro diphenyl
trelhroethAet y.weigh.h the product: atited substantially less than
that amount ofS DbT
On February 7, 1951, no Matlant having appeared, the court entered a decree
of condemnation, andit wasbrdered that the product be destroyed.

108. Lack of registration of "Chapman-Gilbert fly Kill." U. 8. v. 31 1-gallon
QntainelQ, iwre or less, of "Chapman-Gilbert Fly Kill." Default decree
qf condemnation, ftoj 4destructiop (I. F. & R. No. 120. I. D.

The product, "Capman aly i" was nat registered under the Federal
Inseeticide, ungicde, and Rodenticide Act.
On January 30, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricultwe, filed in the United States
District Court a libel prayingfor condeRnntion and confiscation of 31
1-gallon containers, more or less, of "Chapma n-Gilbert Fly Kill," at Tucson, Ariz.,


alleging that the product wastanonomic poison which had b
terstate, on or about Septeboo20,920, by Chapman-Gilbert C
Calif., in violation of the act.
It wasalleged that the pro haa not been registered wil
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On Apail 9, 195t p I la t hang appeared, & decree of
forfeiture was enteid, and it w~a eodero, that the product
Post Office and Federal Builgj~ntpson, Aria., for its use.


een transported in-
.o., from San Diego,
.
lh the Secretary of
condemnation and
1h*egeased to the


Lack of registration of "9righp's Green Guard Parathion aist 01%" and
"Grishan's Green Guard 01% Lindane Dast For Vegtable Crops." U. S.
v.. 18 50-pood bags, more or les1 of "Grisham's Green Guard Parathion
Dust 01%" and 50 50-pound bags, more or less, of "Grisham's Green Guard
01%. Lindane lunt For V gathe Grop s" Consent dpraof condemna-
tion and release under ble (L. F. & R, No. 121. I. r Nos. 23094 and
230950)


The products, "Grisham's GQa Guard Barathion Dust lli an "Grisham's
Green Guard 01% Lindane Dust r Vegetable Crops," were)not registered under


the Federal Insecticide, Fungiciej and Rodentcide Act.
On January 9, 1951, the Unitpl States Attorney for the Weste
Arkansas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of AgricuJlre fil
trict Court a libel praying seizure for, condemnation and gica
pound bags, more or less, of "Grisham's Green Guard Parathis D
50 50-pound bags, more or less, of qGri~sham' Green Guarnt O/o


rn District of
ed in the Dis-
tion of 18 50-
ust 01%" and
Lindane Dust


For Vegetable Crops," at Alma, Ark., alleging that, on or aout May 18, 1950,
August 30, 1950, and September 8, 1950, the products were trfn0ported interstate,
by Grisham's~ from Oklahoma Cil, Okla., in violation of the act:


It was allegedd that the products were economic poisons within th
the act and had not been registered with the Secretary of Agicultur
by section 4 of the act.
H. E. Grisham, of. Oklahoma Qity, Okla., claimed ownership of t
reqpested their release under bon for the purpose of bring g them
ance with the act, and consented twhe entry of a condemnation decr
3, 1951, a dec eeof condemnation as entered by the couiC bnd it
that the products be released to the lgimant under bond..h


Meaning of
e as required
he products,
into compli-


ee.
was


On May
ordered


109.






Y'7. 22


NTAPTCrQ ir


X~rfTlbtih~tr~rr


Er


111. Lack of registration of "GRUBPO." U. S. v. 16 5-pound cans and 176
1-pound cans, m-re or less, of "GRUBPO." Default decree of condemna-
tion, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 123. I.D. No. 23090.)
The product, "GRUZFO," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodentfte Act.
On January 11, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Arkansas, acting upont report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
District Court a libel fayg seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
16 5-pound cans and 1i 1-pound cans, more or less, of "GRUBPO," at Spring-
dale, Ark., alleging that u .or about February 21, 1950, the product was trans-
ported interstate, by Vet Products, Inc., from Kansas City, Mo., in violation of
the act.
It was alleged that th Vroduct was an economic poison within the meaning
of the act and had not feen registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as
required by section 4 of the act.
On February 26. 1951, no claimant having appeared, the court entered a decree
of condemnation and ffeitue, and it was ordered that the product be de-
stroyed.
112. Lack of registration and required information bn label, adulteration, and
misbranding of "Ritter's ill-'EM-Al' Roach, Ant, and Moth Killer."
U. S. v. 53 containers, more or less, of "Ritter's ilI-'Em-Alr Roach, Ant,
and Moth Killer: Default decree of chdmaton, forfeiture, and de-
struction. (I. F. & R. No. 124. I.D. No. S9.)
The product, "Ritter's Kill-Jtn-Al' Roach, Ax, rt Moth Killer," was not
** S w- fl -W AS .*U*:* a^ *-~ .n a a *


* atsLJ ,L*** t^ J A AJfLJ\J J J.A LI W A f^J--LA-flJL A ...VTA

branded within the meaning of the act in that their labels did not bear an ingre-
dient statement giving the-name and percentage of each active ingredient, to-
getther with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an
ingredient statement giving the name of each active ingredient, together with
fl~ name of each and total percentage of the inert if tU ts, in the product.
On January 11, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court a
libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 2,807 %-gallon and 264
1-gallon containers, more or les, of "Glamorene The Professional Carpet
Cleaner," and 1,199 -gallon eontaikers, more or less, E "Glanmorene for Carpet
Glamour," at Washington, D. C., alleging that, on or *but November 30, 1950,
the products were transported interstate, by Jerclaydon, Inc., from Miami
Beach, Fla., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were economic poise within the meaning of
the act and had not be registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as required
by section 4 of the
It was alleged that the products were misbranded within the meaning of
the act in that their litels did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name
and percentage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage of
the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement giving the name
of each active ingredient, together with the name of each and total percentage
of the inert ingredients, in the product.
The Slade Company, Inc., of Washington, D. C., claimed ownership of the
products, requested their release under bond for the purpose of bringing them
into compliance with the at, and consented to the entry of a condemnation de-
cree. On January 19 1951, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was
ordered that the products be released to the claimant under bond.


"";i~






INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT IN. s., I. F. R.


burg, Miss., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been
transported interstate, on Or about August 18, 1950, by Ritter Pest Ontrol, from
Kerrville, Tex., 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 misbranded in that the labels affixed to
the containers of the product did not bear a proper statement of the net weight
or measure of the contents of the containers, inasmuch as the labels stated the
net weight of the product as "16 oz. when packed" and the statement should
have been in terms of the largest unit of weight present, that is, a pound, and a
statement of the net weight of the product when packed did not comply with
the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
the containers bore the statements:


"Positively KILLS Roaches, Ants, and Moths


(Including Silverfish)


Contains


Pyrethrum


DIRECTIONS


Apply with our Duster (GUN) by blowing into cracks and crevices
in and around woodwork and furniture. Kills by suffocation and
contact in from 4 to 10 minutes, prevents eggs from hatching.
NOT dangerous around children, pets, or food, but sure death to
bugs.


*
Net weight when packed, 16 oz.
*on


which were false and
that the product: (1)
and moths; (2) conta
and silverfish in from
insects from hatching;
or food; and that the
whereas the product: (
ants and moths; (2) (


misleading since the statements implied or represented
When used as directed would be effective against ants


ine4
4 t
anm
net


d pyrethrum; (3) would kill roaches, ants,
o 10 minutes; (4) would prevent the eggs
d (5) would not be dangerous around childri
weight of the product when packed was 16
When used as directed would not be effective
not contain pyrethrum; (3) would not kill


, moths,
of these
en, pets,
ounces;
against
roaches,


ants, moths, and silverfish in from 4 to 10 minutes; (4) would not prevent the
eggs of these insects from hatching; and (5) would be dangerous around children,
pets, or food; and the net weight of the product when packed was less than
16 ounces.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
the containers did not bear a warning or caution statement which is necessary
and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man or other verte-
brate animals.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the .labels affixed to
the containers did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and per-
centage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage of the inert
ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement giv the name of each
of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the descending order of the
percentage of each present in each classification, together with the total per-
centage of the inert ingredients, in the product.






77-1331
;. IF .:'ilt


N~


Washi
is tran
violati
It was
the ac
hired by


ngton, D. C., alleging that, on
sported interstate, by Harley
on oft the act. i
alleged that the. product was
t and had not been registered
Section 4 of act..


or about November 18, 1950, the product
Soap Company, from Philadelphia, Pa.,
an economic poison within the meaning
with the Secretary of Agriculture as re-


Harley Soap Compn, of Philadelphia, Pa., claimed ownership of the product,
requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing it into compliance
with the act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On March 28,
1951, a decree of condemnation waA entered, and it was ordered that the product
be released to the claimant under bond.
114. Lack of registration and misbranding of "Lange's Animal Repellent Rope."
U. S. v. 287 cans, more or less, containing 100 feet each, of "Lange's Ani-
mal Repellent Rope." Consent decree of condemnation, and release
Sunder bond. (I. F. & I. No. 127. I. D. No. 22014.)
a product, "Lange's Animal Repellent Rope," was not registered under the-
Federal Insecticide, Flagicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the
product showed that the labels on the containers of the product did not bear an
ingredient statement as aeqmired by the act.
On March 1, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Michigan, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
287 cans, more or less, containing 100 feet each, of "Lange's Animal
peat Detroit, Mich., alleging that the product was an economic
ith bad been transported interstate, on or about January 2, 1951, by
Gilbert Laboratories, from Morristown, N. J., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product had not been registered with the Secretary of
estate as required by section 4 of the act.
t was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
the containers of the produet did not bear an ingredient statement giving the
name and percentage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage,
of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement giving the
name of each of tihe active and each of the inert ingredients in the descending
order of the percentage of each present in each classification, together with the-
total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
William F. Lange andml John George Lange, doing business as W. F. Lange and
Son, a partnerships, etrroit, Mich., claimed ownership of the product, requested
its release under bond for the purpose of bringing it nqo compliance with the
act, and consented to t lie entry of a conde"nntion decree. On August 16, 1951,
a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered that the product be.
released to the claimant wader hond.


115. Lack of res


ist ra


it ion and mishrandinr of "Lanaea Tre Wnnnd Drmmrin."


*W


IE :X


JUDGMENT


113. Lack of registrtint of "Diqe Laurel Odo-Win M tfectant Coef. 6&
iD. A." U, 1-gallon cans, more or less igdJlne Laurel Odo-
int Disinfecan t Coef. 6 F. D1). A." Consent decree of condemnation and
release under .(I, F. & .. No. 126. I. D. 4WOS9.)
The product, "Dixie Laurel Odo-Wint Disinfectant Gt F. D. A.," was not
registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, an ad Rodenticide Act.
On February 26, 1951, the United States Attorney be the District of Co-
lumbia, acting upon a sport of the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District
Court a libel praying ure for condemnation and coaiscation of 59 1-gallon
cans, more or less, o Le Laurel Odo-Wint Disinfeetant Coef. 6 F. D. A.,"


i" ":






IN$EC;TIC WE,


#t1ThfhI~iF


AND


RODENTICIDE


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


list ri ct


Court


a libel


praying


seizure


condemnation


c ln bt 144 /2-pint containers, 143 1-pint containers, 72 1-quart contain-
er and 6 -lIllba containers, more or less, of "Lange's Tree Wound Dressing,"
at Detroit, Mie, alleging that the product was an economic poison which had
been transportd iMterstate on or about January 2, 1951, by Gilbert Laboratories,
from Morristown N. J., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required'by secip the act.
It was alleged that the et was misbrande in that the labels affixed
to the containers did notV an ingredient statement giving the name and
percentage of each active ingre dient, together with the total percentage of the
inert ingredients, in the pro t or an ingredient statement giving the name of
each of the active and each of te inert ingredients in the descending order of
the percentage of each presn n ee classification, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingree in the product
On August 7, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, andhe United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.

116. Lack of registration and nmisbranding of "Wooster Lawe Bilder Contains
2,4-D Weed Killer." U, S. v. 430 10-pound bags, 155 5-pund bags, and
110 50-pound bags, more or less, of "Wooster Lawn Bilder Contains 2,4-D
Weed Killer." Conseif eeeer of condemnation and release under bond.
(I. F. & R.No. 1SO. I. I 0N o18772.)
The product, "Wooster Laytn Bilder Contains 2,4-D Weed Killer," was not
registered under the Federal>nsetlcide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An
examination showed 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 an ingredient statement giving the
name of each active ingredient, together with the name of each and total per-
centage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
On March 6, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court
a libel praying seizure for coidemntiation and confisenation of 430 10-pound bags,
155 25-pound bags, and 110 50-pound bags, more or less. of "Wooster Lawn Bilder
Contains 2,4-D Weed Killer," at Washington /D C., alleging that, on or about Feb-
ruary 23, 1950, and April 5, t@0, the produet was transported interstate, by
Heeman Manufacturing Company, from Wooster, Ohio, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the productet was an economic poison within the meaning
of the act and had not been registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as
required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbrbided within the meaning of the
act in that its labels did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and
percentage of each active ingreient, together with the total percentage of the
inert ingredients, in the product; or an ingredient statement giving the name of


each active ingredient, together with the name of each and to
of the inert ingredients, in the pfotet.
Heeman Manufacturing Compny, of Wooster, Ohio, claimed
the product, requested its release fder bond for the purpose of b
compliance with the act, and coMitbd to the entry of a condemn
On March 22, 1951, a decree of condemnation was entered, and
that the product be released to the claimant under bond


tiP


percentage


ownership of
ringing it into
nation decree.
it was ordered







77-133]

District
24 1-gall
or less,
the prod
or about
Palo Alt<
It wa.
Agriculti
It was
the conti
name an
of the it
name of
order of
total per
On Ma
forfeitur
the prod


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT


Court araying seizure for condemnati and confiscation of
ou containers, 264 1-quart containers, and 111 1-pint cntainers, more
of "Dr. Chuck's BHC Roost Paint," at Portland, Oreg., alleging that
uct was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on
January 5, 1951, by the Dr. I. Y. Chuck Research Laboratory, from
o, Calif., in violation ot the act.
s alleged that the product was not registered ith the Secretary of
ure as required by section Xof the act.
alleged that the product ~as misbranded in t the labels affixed to
miners of the product did not bear an ingrediet statement giving the
d percentage each active ingredient, together with the total percentage
iert ingredients, in the product, or an ingrediet statement giving the
ench of the e and each of the inert ingre ents in the descending
the percent of each present in each classific0ion, together with the
cen age of th ert ingredients, in the product. ,
y 18, 1951, n~ aimant having appeared, a dectn of condemnation and
e was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
uct.


118. Lack of registratin of "Cedar-Lux. U. S. v
10-pound containers and 18 $pound contain
Lux." Consent decree of condemnation and
& R. No. 132. I. 0. No,23416.)
The product, "Cedar-Lux," was not registered u
Fungicide, and Rodentiche 4Act,
On March 9, 1951, the United States Attorney
Louisiana, acting upon report by the Secretary
United States District 0ourt a libel praying sei
confiscation of 10 50-pqand containers, 91 10-pound
containers, more or s:pf "Cedar-Lux," at Bossiei
the product was an contmic poison which had be<
or about November 3 190, December 16, 1950, Janu
1951, by Cedar-Lux Produets Co., Inc., from Kans

It was alleged that thlproduct was not registered
culture as required by see in 4 of the act.
On M'ay 3. 1951, a consent decree of condemnat
ordered that the lIr:Tulet ew released under bond to
Inc., its claimant, for the purpose of bringing the j
the act.


. 104 pound containers, 91
ers, more or less, of "Cedar-
I release under bond. (I. F.

ader the Federal Insecticide,

for the Western District of
of Agriculture, filed in the
zure for condemnation and
containers, and 188 5 pound
E City, La., and alleging that
en transported interstate, on
oary 26, 1951, and February 8,
as City, Mo., in violation of


d with the Secretary of

ion was entered, and it
the Cedar-Lux Products
product into compliance


Agri-
was
Co.,
with


119. Lack of required information on labels and misbranding of "Fortified Pine
Oil Disinfectant.? S. v. 29 5-gallon containers, more or less, of "Forti-
fied Pine Oil Disiutectant." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
and destruction. (I F. A& R. No. 133. I. D. No. 18774.)
An examination of the product, "Fortified Pine Oil Disinfectant," showed that
the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear a statement
of the name, brand, or trade-mark of the product ; a statement of the net weight


or measu
warning
and Rod
On Ma
acting ut
T~ietlrT'.*


ire
or
ent


of t
caut
ieidp


he con rents of the containers; an ingredient statement; nor a
ion statement as required by the Federl Insecticide, Fungicide,


Act.


rch 12, 1951. the United States Attorney or the District of Columbia,
)on a report by the Secatary of Agricul qe #led in the United States
('u '2 I*hj nrrn aarur fnr nnn nnd*v and nnRnf' n i*S t^ 1 M'


lil;~


|






INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RPDENTICID


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


It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
the containers did not bear an ingredient statement giving t" nd pfr
centage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage of the inert
ipgtedients, in the produ tl an ingredient statement giving thei
of the active and each ofSo nert ingredients in te descending order of the per-
centage of each present in each classification, together with the total percentage
of the inert ingredients, in e product.
On June 8, 1951, no clamiant having appeared, a default decree of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was ente and it was ordered that the product be delivered


to G


allinger Hospital, Wahingfon,


D. C., for its use.


< j


120. Lack of required information on label, adulteration, andmisbranding f
"Gold Seal Pine Oil Disinfectant." U. S. v. 161 1-gallot entiners, mrn
or less, of "Gold Seal Pine Oil Disinfectant." Consent decree of con-
demnation and release under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 134. I. D. No. 18763.)
An examination of the product, "Gold Seal Pine Oil Disinfect~nt," showed that
the labels on its containers didntot bear a statement of the net weight or measure
of the contents of the containers; that the product had less than 5.5 times te
disinfectant strength of phenol under the conditions of thq phenol coefficient
test; and that false and misleading claims were made on the labels of the product.
On March 20, 1951, the TUited States Attorney for the Ilstriet of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and tbnfiscation of 161
1-gallon containers, more or less, of "Gold Seal Pine Oil Disinfectant," at Wash-
ington, D. C., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been
transported interstate, on or about June 26, 1950, August 16, 1950, and September
13, 1950, by National Chemical Laboratories of Pennsylvania, from Philadelphia,
Pa., in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that the labels on the containers of the product did not bear
a statement of the net weight or measure of the content s~f the containers as
required by the act.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning of the act
min that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality as ex-
pressed on its labeling since it had less than 5.5 times the disinfectant strength
of phenol under the conditions of the phenol coefficient test, claimed on its labels.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that certain statements on the labels affixed to its containers were false
and misleading since they represented that the product had a phenol coefficient
of 5.5 F. D. A. Method, and when used as directed could be relied upon to disinfect
the places and articles named on the labels, whereas the product had a lower
phenol coefficient than claimed and when used as direct could not be relied
upon to disinfect the places andl articles named.
On April 26, 1951, a consent decree of condemnation w entered, and it was
ordered that the product be released under bond to Natiou Chemical Labora-
tories of Pennsylvania, its claimant, for the purpose of b g the product into
compliance with the act.


121. Lack of registration
U. S. v. 2 55-gallon
fectant." Default
(I. F. & R. No. 135.


The product, "Lesanco
Federal Insecticide, Funi
that th lbnhAk saffimrA tn t


and misbranding of "Lesanco Pine Odor Dis
containers, more or less, of "Lesanco Pine 0
decree of condemnation, forfeit and d
I. D. No. 23867.)
Pine Oor Disinfectant," was iregistered
gicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examninati
*ho nnnftn~rrn oP tbf fn rk

infectant."
dor Disin-
estruction.

under the
on showed
infrrojiSnt


V







77-1331


NOTICES


OF JtDGMENT


It was alleged that e product was pisbransed in that the labels affixed to the
-containers of the pr did not contain directions for w wbich are necessary
and, if complied with adequate for the protection of the .fe
It was alleged that product was misbranded in that tee labels affixed to the
containers of the t did not bear an ingredient stg ent giving the name
and percentage of aeingredtent, together with total percentage of the
inert ingredients, in ffe product, or an ingredient statemit giving the name of
each of the active aCh of the inert ingredients in the descending order of
the percentage of ea present i4 each classification, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
On August 3, 1951, uelaimant having appeared, a- decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.

122. Misbranding of 'estmaster Insect Repellent." U.S. v. 16 dozen 2-ounce
tubes, more or less, of "Pestmaster Insect Repellent." Default decree of
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. &R. No. 136. I. D. No.
22011.)
An examination of the product, "Pestmaster Insect Repellent," showed that the
labels affixed to the containers represented that the contents of the containers
weighed 2 ounces, avoirdupois, whereas the net contents weighed less than
2 ounces, avoirdupois.
On March 29, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois, 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
16 dozen 2-ounce tubes, more or less, of "Pestmaster Insect Repellent," at Chicago,
going that the product was an economic poison which had been transported
interstate, on or about ay 24, 1949, and July 27, 1949, by Michigan Chemical
Corporation, from St. Isi, Mich., in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide A4c, /
alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to the
containers of the product bohere the statement: "Contents: 2 oz. (avd.)" whereas
the net contents of the containers weighed less than 2 ounces, avoirdupois.
.O. August 2, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the
product.

12i Misbranding and adulteration of "Pine-Crown Fortified Pine Oil Disinfec-
..ant" U. S. v. 2 55-gallon containers, more or less, of "Pine-Crown Forti-
led Pine Oil Disinfectant." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 138. I. P, G. 18781.)
An examination of the product, "Pine-Crown Fortified Pine Oil Disinfectant,"
Showed that the labels affited to the containers falsely represented that the prod-
uct was stronger ai 1 more effective for disinfecting purposes than ordinary pine
,oil disinfectant anal that the product contained no oil other than pine oil. An
analysis of the prodult showed that oil other than pine oil had been substituted
for pine oil.


On April 9, 1951
upon a report by t
Court a libel pra:
*containers, more
Washington, D. C
been transported


* the


4.r 1
diP" I
., 1ll
inter
b U -


United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, acting
wcretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States District
seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 2 55-gallon
E eging that the product was an economic poison which had
state, on or about January 31, 1951, by Chemical Service of
It .W Sw S .. -w a,,


~~rt


E:P






INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


A D bTICIDE


ACT IN. J., I. F. R.


Be sure all di
For proper d
disinfectant
Solution
Solution


rt iss
lisinfi
solut
A:
B: 1


FUU
Directions Uor'Wse
wiet up and removedbefoire applying
4tion, surface should be thoroughly
io deribed below.
Ue^ part of Dlis. with 100 parts wat
IfU~b *fl :Bi^lodisinfectant.yvf



Uoeffiient of Dis. A.ag 20 parts wat
Doefmicient 5 F. D. A. against E. Typhi


disinfectant.
wetted with

er
er


SAs a Disinfectant
For Urinals and Toilets: Clean daily with Solution A. Pour
excess solution i pa down urinal drains.
For Public Places: In schools, hotels, theaters, office buildings,
etc. wash freely all floors, desks, etc. with Solution A.
Cuspidors: Clean with Solution A. Leave small amount in
cuspidor.
Garbage Receptacles,2 t-: Wash entire surface thoroughly with
Solution A.
Telephone and Dictating Machine Mouthpieces: Wash thor-
oughly with Solution A.
Kennels, Stables, Chieken Houses, Etc: Wash all surfaces thor-
oughly with Solution A. Allow to remain for approximately
10 minutes and then mop up thoroughly with clear water.
*t
a*
appearing on the labels afflied to the containers of the product were false or


misleading since the statements Implied or represented
Was stronger and more effective for disinfecting purpose
disinfectant; (2) had a phenol coeffiient of 5.0 F. D. A. M1
(E. typhi); (3) contained no oil other than pine oil;
directed could be relied upon to disinfect urinals, toile
telephone and dictating machine mouthpieces, floors and
theaters and office buildings, surfaces in Kennels, stable
and all other surfaces, articles, and places implied by t
whereas, the product: (1) Was not stronger and more e
purposes than ordinary pine oil disinfectant; (2) had a
than 5.0 F. D. A. Method against S. typhosa (E. typh);
than pine oil; and (4) when used as directed could not be
urinals, toilets, garbage receptacles, telephone and dic


pieces, floors and desks in schools, hotels, theaters an
in kennels, stables, and chicken houses, and all oth
places implied by the abbreviation "etc."
It was alleged that the product was adulterated in
substituted wholly or in part for the product since
containers bore the statement:


that the product: (1)
s than ordinary pine oil
ethod against 8. typhosa
and (4) when used as


ts, garbage rece
desks in schools,


I


es, and chicken !
the abbreviation
effective for disin
phenol coefficient
i3) contained oi
Relied upon to di
stating machine


ptacles,
hotels,
houses,
"etc.";
fecting
of less
l other
sinfect
mouth-


d ofce buildings, surfaces
ter astfaks, articles, and

that a substance had been
the labels affixed to the


"Pine-Crown Fortified Pine Oil Disinfectat


Contents--Active Ingredients
Pine Oil
Soap
Isopropyl Alcohol
Ortho-Benzyl-Para-Chlorophenol
Inert Ingredients
Water 10%"


"6~iS


BE. X P i:E







77-133]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


of "Green Light 74% Chlordane Emulsifiable Concentrate For Agr
tural Use." t decree of condemnation aid release under b
( I. F. & R.N N0T. .. No. 21907.)
The product, "Green Light 74% Chlordane Emulsiflai centrate For
cultural Use," was r ilE registered under the Federal I cide Fungicide,
Rodenticide Act. An examination showed that the labels affixed to the contain
of the product represented that the product, when used directed, would
trol ticks, flies, leaf hoppers, an all other insects imp by the term "e
whereas the product would not control ticks, flies, leaf oppers, and all o


insects implied by "et"; that th
not contain directiohsTor the protection ol
statement; and that i labels affixed to tl
state that the product Ud be injurious to
On April 25, 1951, United States Al
acting upon a report the Seeretary of AI
District Court a libel ayi seizure for
1-quart bottles and 22 -pint bttles1, more or
Emulsifiable ConcentrM or Agricnltural'
the product was an economic poison which
or about October 28, 1950, by lauss-White,
of the act.


C


icul-
iond.


Agri-
and
ners
con-
tc.,"
ther


e labels affixs to the containers did
the public a warning or caution
he containersrf tlhe product did not
certain cucu4t crops.
:torney for the District of Arizona,
agriculture, fil ein the United States
condemnation and confiscation of 11
less, of "Gre p Light 74% Chlordane
Use." at Phoix, Ariz., alleging that
had been trInsported interstate, on
from San Afftonio, Tex., in,violation


It was alleged that the product was not registered with the S
culturee as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the st
"GREEN LIGHT 74% HLORDANE EMULSIFIABLE
TRATE FOR AGRICULTURAL USE
Kills GRASSHOPPRS, ANTS, ALFALFA WEVIL
BUGS, TICKS, HoGGERS, FLEAS, FLIES, Army Wo:
Thrips. Potato Betles, Leaf Hoppers, Squash Bugs, and
garden and field aictt.
*s *


V
4K~ ~


ai t r;


Secretary of Agri-

atements:
CONCEN-


IS, LYGUS
rms, Onion
many other


a GREEN LIGHT Product
Contains
TECHNICAL OHLORDANE

GREEN LIT 74% CHLORDANE EMULSIFIABLE
CONCEWRATE FOR AGRICULTURAL USE
*DIRECTIONS


One gallon


50 gallo
water;
VEGET
at 1 to :
portions
LAWNS
oughly


Is
to
kB

of


to 4(,0 o water; 1 qt. to 100 gallons water;
water; t. to 25 gallons water; 3 ounces to 10
iblelo ii to 1 gallon Water.
LE 'R(P PESTS-Spray with 50 gal. of mixture
erk intUrvals. No harmful residue will be left o
plants tiflast spraying is 3 weeks before harvest.
For control of red bugs, fleas, ants, etc., wet gra
h a bove mixture. Repet as nee e-d.


1 pt. to
gallons

per acre
n edible

ss thor-


GRASSHOPI'PERS--Spray foliage on which grasshoppers are feeding
with 50 gallons of mixture per acre. Repeat at 1 to 8 week intervals
as needed.
CUT ANTSq RED ANTS; rC. *
Manufactured bh Slauss-White, San Antonio, Teas."


- ,


V~~


69


-*






INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


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


It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that when used as directed


for squashbg control it would be imnj
It was alleged that the product was
the containers of the produce t did not d
on the edibe parts of foo within
KlaussWhite claimed < fp of
bond for the purse of bringing it int
to the entry of a condemnatio decree.


uLrious to cert
misbranded
direct that the
30 days of ha
the product,
o compliance
On July 20,


ain cucurbit a
in that the la
product shou
rvest.
requested its
with the act,
1951, a decree


2rop.
Lbels affixed to
ild not be used


release under
and consented
e of condemna-


tion was entered, and it waso tdetd that the product be released to the claimant
baider bond.
125. Lack of registration and misbranding of aOptox." U. S. v. 144 1-ounce
bottles and 142 6-ounece bottles, more or less, of "Optox." Consent decree
of condemnation and relIase under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 141. I. D. No.
22512.)
The product, "Optox," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act., An examination showed that the labels affixed
to the containers of the prodiet did not bear an ingredient tatewent.
On April 24, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agrieultre, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of 144 1-ounce bottles and 142 6-ounce bottles, more or less, of "Optox,"
at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the product was an economic poison which
had been transported interstate, on or about January 16, 1951, by Hitox Products
Corporation, from Elmira, 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 product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the
name and percentage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage
of the inert ingredients, in the product,- or an ingredient statement giving the
name of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the descending
order of the percentage of each present in each classification, together with the
total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
Aggeler & Musser Seed Co., of Los Angeles, Calif., claimed ownership of the
product, requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing the
product into compliance with the act, and consented tq the entry of a con-
demnation decree. On August 20, 1951, a decree of condemnation was entered,
and it was ordered that the product be released to the claimant under bond.

126. Lack of registration andmisbranding of "Safe-Way 2-41 Miture Toxaphene-
DDT Emulsifiable." U. S. v. 38 55-gallon drums, pre or less, of "Safe-
Way 2-1 Mixture Toxaphene-DDT Emulsifiable." Ct decree of con-
demnation and release under bond. (I. F. & R. No, I. D. No. 23927.)


The product, "Safe-Way 2-1 Mixture Toxaphene-DDT ifint
registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and nti.i
examination showed that the labels affixed to the contain of the
not bear an ingredient statement. a
On May 3, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Western


Oklahoma, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agcultur
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemn
fiscation of 38 55-gallon drums, moreor less, of "Sate-Wav 2-1Mixti
DDT Emulsifiable." at Hobart, Okla., alleging that the prodaut wi


le," \was not
de Act. An
product did


e, fil
1t ion
ireT
is an


District


ed in the
I and con-
oxaphene-
economic


1







r 77-V~3]


tl4OlCE


JUDGMENT


order of the percent each prset in each classifation, together with
the total percentage otte inert ingredients, in the produjs
Safe-Way Farm Products Company, of Austin, Tex., aimed ownership of
the prduct, requesrelease under bond for the puptl aof bringing it into
compliance with the act, and consented to the entry of t"ndemnation decree.
On June 19, 1951, a dfee of condemnation was entered and it was ordered
that the product be released to the claimant under bond.


127. Misbranding of "tatmaster Insect Repellent No. 140" U.
2-ounce tubes, tte or less, of "Pestmaster Inset Repell
Default decree o condemnation, forfeiture, and d tructio
No. 144. I.D. No. 21982.)
An examination of the product, "Pestmaster Insect Repellent No.
that the labels affixed to the containers of the product represent
as 2 ounces (avd.) whereas the net contents of each container
2 ounces.
On June 15, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Northe
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricultur
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemn
fiscation of 400 dozen 2-ounce tubes, more or less, of "Pestnaster Ii


No. 140)," at San Francisco, Calif., alleging that the product was
poison which had been transported interstate, on or about Decem
and January 27, 1950, by Michigan Chemical Corporation, from St.


in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in
the containers of the product bore the statement: "
I whereas the net contents of each container was less th
tOn August 8, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a d
orfeitre was entered, and the United States Marsh
the product.

12 ending of "SUiy. i. S. v. 976 1-quart c
"I V it


"pandy. Dei
S*t& R. No. ]
An aramination of
the Containers repres
fungicide, and would
labels were false and
On May 17, 1951, th


asti deer
145. I. D.


sylvania, acting up
United States Distr
fiscation of 976 1-q
alleging that the pr
on or about Februa
in violation of tine
It was alleged th
to the containers of


Rodenticide
that the lab
Contents: 2
ian 2 ounces


S. v. 400 dozen
ent No. 1400."
n. (I. F. & R.


1400," showed
d the contents
was less than


rn District of
e, filed in the
action and con-
isect Repellent


an ec
ber 31
Louis,
Act.
els affi
oz. (A
(AVD.


)nomic
, 1949,
Mich.,

xed to
NVD.)"
).


ecree of condemnation and
tl was ordered to destroy


atainers, more or less, of
A *j .


ee or condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
. No. 22812.)


the product, "Spandy," showed that the labels affixed
ented that the product was a germicide, disinfectant,
destroy bacteria and fungi and that the claims on


ml


on
ict
uar
"od
r. U


I


misleading.


United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pe
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
loirt a libel praying seizure for condemnation and c
containers, more or less, of "Spandy," at Easton, I
t was an economic poison which had been transport
, 1951, by G. N. Coughlan Co., from West Orange, N.


to
or
the

nn-
the
Q0n-
Pa.,
ted,
J..


federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
: the product was misbranded 4n that the labels attached


the product stated:


"SPANDY
NEW! POTENT GERMICIDE
DISINFECTANT
ANTISrPTIC-FUNGICIDE
DEODORANT


1.> Fl


4


i






INSECTICIDE,


FJNGIOIWE,


AND RODZENfTCIDE A. .


I. F. R.


THE SUPER 8ANITIZER i
DEODORANT SP Y deordorizes by destroying a
and fungi that c se unpleasant odors. Leaves no d gepable
chlorine or 'hospital mll.' Use equal parts SPANDY and water
to deedorize- K
Garbage Pails Bed Pans Urin&Al Sputum Cups BHoses
A dilution of 1 oz. (2 tbsp.) SPANDY to gal. of water will efeetiely
deodorize--
Sick Rooms Toalet Bowls Rubber Sheets Clb Lockers
Sports Apparel Dress Shields Food Odors on 1ands and
Chopping Blocks, etc.
MAKES LAUNDRY CLINICALLY CLEAN AND MILDEW-
PROOF A final rinse of 1 oz. SPANDY TO GALLON Of WATER
helps protect laundry against deep-rooted odors, mildew and infec-
tious germs, bacteria and fungi.
*
FUNGICIDE---MILDEW PROOFER
Use 1 oz. SPANDY to gallon of water to kill fungi that eatuse mildew
or decay in laundry-rinse, in sprinkling before ironing and as
, wall wash. USE AS SPRAY to control mildew-rot in leather goods,
clothing, curtains, drapes, rugs, etc. As a deodorant and for ex-
treme mildew or fungus conditions such as occur in sneakers, shoes,
dress shields, athletic equipment, etc., SPRAY OR WASH LIBER-
ALLY WITH EQUAL PARTS SPANDY AND WATER.
*

MARVELOUS FOR DIAPERS
leading test laboratories certify that a SPANDY rinse leaves diapers
sanitized and clinically clean--extra safe for baby's skin. Diapers
rinsed in SPANDY smell sweet and clean, feel soft and fluffy.
SPANDY clean diapers help prevent diaper rash. FOR DIAPER
RINSE USE 1 OZ. TO GALLON OF WATER.
*
NO MORE UNPLEASANT
DIAPER CAN ODOR!


SPANDY eliminates diaper can odor immediately prol
soiled diapers against germs and fungi. In conventions diaper
fill deodorant dispenser with SPANDY. If soiled dipape are st
in water, use 1 OZ. SPANDY TO GALLON OF WTS. If s'
diapers are not stored in water, sprinkle each diQe genero
with SPANDY solution (1 OZ SPANDY TO 4 OZ. WTER).

PROTECT BABY AGAINST
GERMS BY WASHING TOYS,
CLOTHING AND NURSERY
ARTICLES WITH SPANDY


tects
ca ored
oiled
usly


* *


~;":'







77 -1 33


NOTICES


OF ,JDGMENT


shields, and that cause food odors on hands and choppingblocks, and all odors
indicated by the abbreviation "etc."; (3) would act as afungicide in laundry
rinse to kill fungi tL Y cause mildew or decay; (4) would provide clinically
clean diapers; and r$ would protect babies against geriis when used to wash
toys, clothing, and nursery articles; and that the net a ts of each of the
containers of the product was 1 quart; whereas the when used as
directed, would not act as a potent germicide, disinfect or fungicide, destroy
bacteria and fungi, provide clinically clean diapers, or et babies, and the
net contents of each of the containers of the product wa~ s than 1 quart.
On June 27, 1951, no11laimant having appeared, a decrSf condemnation and
forfeiture was entered Nd it was ordered that the pro t be destroyed.

129. Adulteration arnd ending of "Colorado .44 Emulsifiable Concentrate"
and "Colorado 4 rand Cotton Spray 40-20" and k of registration of
"Colorado .44 Wrand Cotton Spray 40-20." U. S. v nhemnical Corporation
of Colorado, a erporation. Plea of guilty to coun4 one, two, and three.
Fine of $100 on ach of counts one and two and $2 0 on count three, or a
total of $400. Counts four, five, and six dismissed. (I. F. & R. No. 146.
I. D. Nos. 19242, 0592, 205983, 21834, and 21835.)
An analysis of the product, "Colorado .44 EmulsifiableAoncentrate," showed


that it
:"56 perch
The
under t
On J
-acting


cont
ent i
prod
he F
uly
upon


gained less than 44 percent of technical chlordane, and an
nert ingredients.
uct, "Colorado .44 Brand Cotton Spray 40-20,"' was not
federal Insecticide, Pungieide, and Rodenticide Act.
18, 1951, the United: States Attorney for the District of
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fled in the Dist


excess of

registered

Colorado,
rict Court


an information against Chemical Corporation of Colorado, a corporation, alleg-
ing that, on or about March3, 1950, the corporation shipped 48 4-ounce containers,
48 8-ounce containers,24 1-pint containers, and 12 1-quart containers of "Colo-
rado .44 Emulsifiable 0ctentrate," from Denver, Colo, to Salt Lake City, Utah,
and that, on or about June 12, 1950, the corporation dipped 5 5-gallon cans
and 1 55-gallon drum ofOolorado .44 Brand Cotton Spray 40-20," from Denver,
Colo. to Artesia, N. Mex
In count one it was aged that the product "Colorado .44 Emulsifiable Con-
Satrat' was misbrande in that the labels affixed to the containers of the prod-
uct bore the statement:



ACTIVE INGREDfITS:
TECHNICAL CHLORDANE* _- --.
INERT INGREDIITS-.----
TOTAL -.... .. .


Percent
44
56
100


*Equiivalenit t.l 2t,4% Octachloro, 4.7-Methano-tetrahydroindane and
17.6% related ,-mp unds.



whereas the product
excess of 56 percent i
In count two it wa
-centrate" was adulte
or quality under whi
the product stated:


contained less than 44 percent technical chlordane and in
nert ingredients.
s alleged that the product "Colorado .44 Emulsifiable Con-
rated in that its strength or purity fell below the standard
ch it was s2 since the labels &ffixed to the containers of


~4ae*


* *


- -i--.l ~ -- n.


j j


..




AI.jIIIIII -


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


i5j. re.


In court three it was alleged that
Spray 40t20," was not registered with
by section 4 of the Act.
In count for it was alleged that
Spray 40 -20,, did not hfb affixed to
bearing a stateumet of the net weigh
tainert
In count five it was allege& Sat the j
40-20," was misbranded in that its lab


the product, "Colorado .44 Brand
the Secretary of Agriculture as re

the product, "Colorado .44 Brand
eaeh of its immediate containers s
t or measue of the contents of th

product, "C*orado .44 Brand Cotton
eling bhre the statemnentE


Cotton
quir4

Cotton
a la
e Spray
Spray


Iwo cut


Toxaphene (technical chlorinated camphene 67-69
chlorine)... ----------------- ---
C -. 4 .'lili m u m i l n m a i m na m a al. .m a g n a e*mail m m aM a g e a l ae m m g aa /i s ll m a m ^ .
DDT (dichloro diphenyl richloro ethane) Min. Set,. Point
8 9 0 C --- -- ---- ---- r^
9t r-
Perlum ovent.. .


* *5s


and such statements were false or misleading since the pro#cet contained less
than 40 percent of toxaphene and less than 20 percent at dis or diphenyl
trichloroethane.
In count five it was alleged that the product, "Colorado .4 Brand Cotta
Spray 40-20," was further misbranded in that its labels did not b ar a proper
ingredient statement as required by the act and the regulations since the 5
gredient statement on the labels of the product did not name as an ingrediut
a 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid derivative which was an active ingredient flr
tained in the product.
In count five it was alleged that the product, "Colorado .44 Brand Ctg
Spray 40-20," was further misbranded in that its labeLs did not contain a warning
or caution statement which was necessary and, if complied witk adeat Ai
prevent injury to living man and other vertebtate animals.
In count five it was alleged that the product, "Colorado .44 Brand Cotton Sprat
40-20," was further misbranded in that, when used as directed or is accordion
with commonly recognized practice, it was injurious to vegetation, except weeds,
to which it was applied.
In count six it was alleged that the product, "Colorado .44 Band Cotton Spray
40-20," was adulterated in that a substance, to wit, a 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetie
acid derivative, had been substituted in part for the product.
In count six it was alleged that the product, "Colorado .44 Brand OCtton Spray
40-20," was further adulterated in that its strength or purity fell below the
professed standard or quality under which it was sold since i labels stated in
part:
MS* *
Percen
Toxaphene (technical chlorinated camphene 67-69% clarine_ 40
DDT (dichloro diphenyl trichloro ethane) __olorad_ ... 20
*~


whereas the product contained less than 40 percent of toji ene and less than
20 percent of dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane.
The defendant corporation entered a plea of guilty to coy cne, two, and three
of the information, and the court imposed a fine of $100 on eat one, a fine of $100
on count two, and a fine of $200 on count three, or a total j0 400. Counts four,
five, and six were dismissed.








77-133]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


tainers was less than te 10 pounds stated on the labels amfxed to the containers
and that the produ elntained less sodium salt of2 2pophenoxyacetic
acid than stated on the labels affixed to the containers. The examination also
showed that the stre li or purity of the product fell below the standard or
quality stated on the laels affixed to the containers.
On May 22, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,
acting upon a report y the Secretary of Agriculture, filedin the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation aad confiscation of 566
10-pound bags, more or less, of "2 In 1 Hubbard Weed-Kil Lawn Food 6-10-4 Turf
Food with 2,4-D," at Portland, Conn., alleging that the pcMuct was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate, on or ab March 1, 1951, by


Goulard an
It was a I
containers
cents which


d Olena, Ind fom Skillman, N. J., in violation of the act.
leged that t product was misbranded in that 4e labels affixed to the
of the prodq bore statements relative to the qoduct and its ingredi-
were false M anisleading since the labels stated n part:


"10 LBS. NET
*


ACTIVE INGRB.IENT AS HERBICIDE: Percent
Sodium Salt of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Aci ..- ....--- 0. 30
INERT INGREDIENTS:
Fertilizer Raw Materials___ _--_ 99.70
*Equivalent to 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid___ 0.20


* *


whereas the net contents of the
product contained less than 0.30
acetic acid.
It was alleged that the product
fell below the standard t quality
the product since the la stated


containers were less than 10 pounds and the
percent sodium salt of 24-Dichlorophenoxy-

wasiadulterated in that its strength or purity
stated on the labels affixed to the containers of
in part:


ACTIVE INGRE ENT AS HERBICIDE: Percent
S"S^Bodium Salt of 2,rDichlorophenoxyacetic Acid*.- 0.30
INERT INGREDINS-:
Fertilizer Rawaterials"____._____________ 99. 70
S*Elquivalent to 2,4'fleho ropheoxracetic Acid-^- --- 0.20


* V


whereas the product contained less than 0.30 percent sodium salt of
phenoxyacetic acid.
Goulard and Olena, Inbof SkiUman, N, J., claimed ownership of
requested its release untar bond for the purpose of bringing it int
with the act, and consenteI to the entry of a condemn atioan decree. 0
1951, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered thai
be released to the claimant under bond.


2,4-Dichloro-

the product,
o compliance
In October 15,
t the product


131. Lack of registration and required information on labels of "Kapsulate."
IU. S. v. 3,300 containers, more or less, of "Kapsulate." Default decree of
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & f. No. 148. I. D. No.
22140.)


The product,


"Kapsulute," was ppt registered under the Federal Insecticide,


Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product showed that the


IE~~"






INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


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


It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture4a retired by se 4 of the ac t.
It wih alleged 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.
On April 9, 1952, no clamnt having appearda decree of condemnation and
forfeiture waw entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.

132. Lack of registration quired information on labels and misbranding
of "Excelsior Rodent BIler." U. S. 6a,900 containers, more or less, of
"Excelsior Rodent Iller" Consent decree of condemnation and release
under bond. (I. F.&Ro. 149. I. D. No.a 22141.)
The product, "Excelsior Rod n Killer," was not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination showed that the
labels affixed to the containerSf the product did not bear an ingredient state-
ment nor a statement of the aet weight or measure of the contents of the
containers.
On June 5, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois,
acting upon a report by the Sezetary of Agriculture, filed if the United States
District Court a libel praying spisre for condemnation and confiscation of 6,900
containers, more or less, of "EDceslor Rodent Killer, at Ch L, alleging
that the product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate,
on or about March 2, 1951,-by Jacob Hoerner, from Lemay olation of
the act.
It was alleged that the product wA not registered with the Secreary of Agt
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged 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.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to fhe
containers of the product did not bear an ingredient stateuiient giving the name
and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total per-
centage of the inert ingredients, in tge ro4ct, or an ingredient statement giving
the name of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the descending
order of the percentage of each present in each classification, together with the
total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
Jacob Hoerner, of Lemay, Mo., claimed ownership of the product, requested
its release under bond for the purpose of bringing it into compliance with the act,
and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On March 27, 1952, a
decree of condemnation was entered,* an it was ordered that the product be
released to the claimant under bond.
133. Lack of registration of "Farmcraft Chlordane Emulsion Concentrate (Tech-
nical Chlordane-72%)," "Farmcraft Chlordane Emulsion Concentrate
(Technical Chlordane--36%)," "5% Deetate with Sulphur," and "10%
Deenate with Sulphur" U. S. v. 23 1-quart containers, more or less, of
"Farmcraft Chlordane Emulsion Concentrate (Technical Chlordane-
72%)," 9 5-gallon containers, more or less, of "Famcraft Chlordane
Emulsion Concentrate (Technical Chlordane-36%)," 154 50-pound con-
taminers, more or less, of "5% Deenate with Sulphur," and 90 50-pound
containers, more or les of "10%' Deenate with Sulphur." Consent
decree of condemnation td release under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 150.
I. D. Nos. 21307, 21308, 21309, and 21810.)
The products, "Farmcraft ChIteffine Emulsion Concentrate (Technical Chlor-
dane-72%),'" "Farmeraft Chlorfae Emulsion Concentrate (Technical Chlor-






77-133]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


*50-pound containers, more or less, of "5s
containers, mure or less, of "10% De
alleging that the products were econc


interstate, till 0
from Wilsonvill
It was allege
Agriculture as
Craig Eagles
quested their re
with the act, an


1, 1951, a decree of
ucts be released to

IN


A-C Deodorol:
Associated Che


Arthur SI
Airosol Insect
Miticide:
East End
Bug-Ded Bedb
Boyle-Mid
Cedar-Lux:


ebrem
Repe


r about May 8, 1951, an
le, Oreg., in violation of
Il that the products had
required by section 4 of
,on of Wilsonville, Oreg
lease under bond for th
id consented to the enter


condemn
the claims

DEX T


mists,
llant d
'-I --
'hauL axdx


% Deenate with Sulphur," and 90 50-pound
enate with Sulphur," at Tulelake, Calif.,
mic poisons which had been transported,
d April 11, 1951, by Farmcraft Chemicals,
the act.
not been registered with the Secretary of
the act.
.. claimed ownershiD of the products, re-


e
F


nation was en
ant under bo

NOTICES (
N J. No.


- -- --
- --


Carting Co,.c5+ ^
ug Killer:
way, I nc.. -..


Cedar-Lux Products
Cetylcide Germicidal C
For Instrument Disinf
Cetylite Industries. ]
Chapman-Gilbert Fly Ki
Chapman-Gilbert Co.


Cleaning
Bayoi
Colorado
trate a
Cotton
Chem


[.01
dus
Em


md Coe
tries, I
ulsifiab


Colorndo
ray 40-21):
L. Corp. of C


Cook's Chlordane Em
centrate :
Cook Chemical Co-
Dixie Klemm Odorless
vator and Cleanser:
Dixie Chemical P
Dx.Ltd ...e ..-W..
Dixie Laurel Odo-Wi


tant Cc
Harli
Dr. Chuci
Dr. F
ora
Elcelsior
Jacob
Farmcraf
Concern


I
I
I


89
8


'(9


g~,Ine 11


f. 5-:
nc,___
3 C^Q-- ------
lt cen-
.44 Brand


0


ulsion Cbn-


Tolt e eno-

roducts Co.,

nt isinfec-


'fe 6 F D. A.
ey Soanp Co -
k's BHC Roost
. Y. Chuck Research Lab-
tory---------
Rodent Killer :
itoernier
t Chlorda ne spihiton
rate (Technical Chlor-
a^ n. t^^ -*^ *


101

108

96



129


82



104


113



182.


purpose of bringing them i
of a condemnation decree.


ia


nto compliance
On November


tered, and it was ordered that the p
'nd.
)F JUDGMENT 77133

N. J
Flipo Special S and Outdoor
Spray:
Eagle oProdu_ o
ProdH _- ..... ::

Fortified Pine O" tsinfectant:
Chemical Service of Balti-
m ore -- -- -- -- -- -pm enauwaelklummmm l -
iFumigas:
Interstate Ctemical Co- .


Glamorene The Wrotessional Carpet
Cleaner and 0amorene For Car-
pet Glamour:
Jerclaydon, Inc .--... --_
The Slade o., Inc- --
Gold Seal Pine Til Disinfectant:
National Chemical Labora-
tories of Pennsylvania -.
Green Light 74% Chlordane Emul-
sifiable Concentrate For Agricul-
tural Use:
Klauss -White------ -- .. .-- --..
Grisham's Green Guard Parathion
Dust 01% and Grisham's Green
Guard 01% Lindane Dust For
Vegetable Crops:
Grisham's _..----------------
H. E. Grisham -....-.-- --.--
GRUBPO:
Vet Products, Inc -- --
Jiffy Mist Aerosol Bombs:
Bri-TCes t, :nc.. - -I-nc --
Kapsulate:
Kelly Agricultural Products
Co
C O0 --- .. m--- ----- -- -..-.. ... a
Lange's Animal Repellant Rope:
Gilbert Laboratories---- -.-
William t Lange -...
John George Langee_--____
W. F. Lange and Son --- -


rod-



SNo.


107


119

956



110fl
110


120k



124



1090
109


111

842-


131

114
114
114
114







INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICI DE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT IN. J., I. F. R.


___~*4m
04
4
o 01
i 0
0
4
U-_____
IL LO
0
__p
0) 0
__N
z (0
__('I


N. J. No.


National Mange Oil:
S National Compound Co----- 77
Odor-Ban It O-B Cakes and
Odor-Ban Electric Deodorizer:
Cajuhom Disfltibuting Con 86
100-8 Houston's Rotenone Mixture:
Sam Houston Co. 106
Optoxr:
Hitex Products Corporation_- 125
SAggeler& Muser Seed Co--_ 125
Pergerm The Perfumed Disinfect-
ant:
Hysan Products o .....------ 78
Pestmaster Insect Repellet:
Michigan Chemical Corpora-
tion ". 19
tion- -- ..:- :- --1 ------------
Pestmaster Insect Repellent No.
1400 :
Michigan Chemical C ---- 127
P-51 Insect Spray with fl D. T.
and Sprayway Moth ProEfer:
Tru-Pine Co ------_- -.--- 90
The Riddit Products GO--- 90
Pine-Crown Fortified Pine Oil Dis-
infectant:
Chemical Service of Baltimore. 123
Pine Oil Disinfectant:
R & R Chemicals_ _...----- 91
Pinola Liquid 306sin Wod Pre-
server:
Pinola Produects, Ine... ... 99
Pine Tree Disinfectant; 5% D. D. T.
Insecticide; Newark Coal Tar
Disinfectant; and Newark Pine
Oil Disinfectant:
Crystal Chemical Co..---..... 93
Ramelli Pine Oil:
Rudolph Ramelli, Inc._.____ 98


N. J. No.


Retox Containing Lindane:
Re-Mark Chemical Co., Ine --
Ritter's "Kill-'Em-All Roach, Ant,
and Moth Killer:
Ritter Pest Control_--- .... -
Safe-Way 2-1 Mixture Toxaphene-
DDT Emulsifiable:
Safe-Way Farm Products Co.
Saf T Sur Mix :
Saf T Sur Products Corp.....--
Spandy:
G. N. Coughlan Co .-
Spra-White Liquid Insecticide
Berry Seed Co-------_
Standard Seed & Feed Co -
Steri-Kleen The Block Type De-
tergent:
Edwards-Councilor ---
SterileAir Triethylene Glycol:
SterileAir Corp. of America_
Terminix:
E. L. Bruce Co----
The Rocket Aerosol Insecticide
Atomizer:
Associated Chemists. Inc---


Tra-Fax Industrial Floor Wax:
Service Industries (A Trust).
2 In 1 Hubbard Weed-Kil Lawn
Food 6-10-4 Turf Food with
2,4-D:
Goulard and Olena, Inc-....
Wooster Lawn Bilder Contains
2,4-D Weed Killer:
Heeman Manufacturing Co-..-
Ya-De The 5 Year Guaranteed
Mothproof:
Crossland Manufacturing Co.,
Inc ... --


105
105


130


I