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:
AA00008506:00002

Related Items

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

Full Text
Un


i.., I. F. R. 134-169


Issued April 1953


UNITED


STATES DEPARTMENT


OF


,PRODUCTION


AND


ME --...-. -ADMINISTR ATTAN


LIVESTOCK BRANCH


NOTICES


JUDGMENT
FUNGICIDE,


UNDER
AND R


THE


FEDERAL


ODENTICIDE


INSECTICIDE,


ACT


134-169


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).
SH. E. REED,
Director, Livestock Branch,
Production and Marketing Administration.
WAsmNGTON, D. C., January 29, 1953.


134. Lack of registration of "ARAB U-DO-IT Concentrate Termite Control."
U. S. v. 47 pint bottles and -18 quart bottles, more or less, of "ARAB
U-DO-IT Concentrate Termite Control." Default decree of condemna-
tion, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 166. I. D. No. 22473)


The product,


"ARAB


U-DO-IT


Concentrate


Termite


Istered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodent
On October 24, 1951, the United States Attorney for the


acting upon a report by the Secretary
District Court a libel praying seizure
pint bottles and 48 quart bottles, more
Termite Control," at Washington, D.
economic poison which had been trans
1951, by Federal Chemical Co., Inc.,
the act.


It was alleged that the product was not r
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On January 24, 1952, no claimant having
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and
tha jAa!-md,.nw


of Agriculture, filed
for condemnation a
or less, of "ARAB
C., alleging that


Control,"


was


icide Act.
District of Columbia,
in the United States
nd confiscation of 47
U-DO-IT Concentrate
the product was an


ported interstate, on or about October 5,
from Indianapolis, Ind., in violation of


registeredd


with


the Secretary


appeared, a default decree of
it was ordered that the product


A C


RI ii RI(E TIN r,


A DR/I IN TS TR A T T nN




SD.


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


A)W


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[. F.. NJ.


0.86 percent and 1.63 percent of alkyl (C8Hi to C.H31) dimethyl benzyl ammonium
chloride, respectively. When tested, the product was found to have a phenol
coefficient of 0.8 instead of a phenol coefficient of 6 as claimed.
On November 13, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
DiptriQt Court a ,ifl praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 60
drutms, 55-gallons ach, more or less, of "NO-ODOR DISINFECTANT F. D. A.
PHENOL COEFFICIENT 6," at Washington, D. C., alleging that the product was
an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or about Septem-
ber 22,1951, by the Universal Chemical Company, from Boston, Mass., in violation
of the act.
It was alleged that the product was no registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning of the
act in that its strength or purity fell bel professed standard or quality as
expressed on its labeling since its label bore the statements :
"PBENOL COEFFICIENT 6
Active Ingredients: 3%
Alkyldimethylbenzyl Ammonium
Chlot
Inert Ingredt97%
Waf^
$

whereas the product had a phenol coefficit of less than 6, and it contained less
than 3 percent of alkyl (0afls to OCHar) Ibethyl benzyl ammonium chloride
and more than 97 percent of inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was mis aded within the meaning of the act
in that its labeling bore the statements:
"PHENOL COECIENT 6

Active Ingred ts: 3%
Alkyldimethylben Ammonium
Chlort aes
Inert Ingredits 97%
Wate*
dLLWPK&V -f ** 19 0 jMW ^vKUj ~ w


I
k


*


whereas the product had a phenol coefficientof less than 6, and it contained less
than 3 percent of alkyl (CJ11 to CH3a7) aethiyl benzyl ammonium chloride
and more than 97 percent of inert ingredient?
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labeling accompanying f product did not contain directions
for use which were necessary and, if c 'with, adequate for the protection
of the public.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling did not bear warning or caution statement wiift
was necessary and, if complied with, ade t to prevent injury to living man
and other vetebrate animals.
On January 22, 1952, no claimant havil appeared, a decree of condemnation
an, forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.


M:IB






134-1691


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT
-^ xx


the United States District Court a libe
confiscation of 6,706 1-pint containers
less, of "GUILCO CLEANER POLISH


Birmingham
been transpo
Chemical Co
It was all
Agriculture1
It was all


, Ala.
rted i
., Inc
eged
as r
eged


, alleging that the pro
interstate, on or about
!., from Gulfport, Mis
that the product wa
required by section 4
that the product was


l ~~seizure for condemnation and
anO 1-quart containers, more or
4ER W MAGIC PARAMECIUM," at
ducn as an economic poison which had
May 15, 1951, and June 18, 1951, by Guleo
s., iBaftion of the act.
s not registered with the Secretary of
of te act.
misbranded within the meaning of the


act in that the labels affixed to the co


I


atar w vof the product did not bear an


ingredient statement giving the name and peentage of each of the active in-
gredients, together with total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product,
or an ingredient statement giving the namtt 6f each of the active and each of
the inert ingredients in the descending ore of the percentage of each present
Search classification, together with the totu percentage of the inert ingredients,
in the product.
On February 15, 1952, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was
ordered that the United States Marshal gve the product to some authorized
agent or representative of an authorized and worthy hospital or charitable
institution, for the use and benefit of such institution and for no other purpose.

17. Lack of registration and misbranding of "GLAMORENE THE PROFES-
SIONAL CARPET CLEANER." U. S. v. 240 1-gallon cans and 1,910
j-gallon cans, more or less, of "GLAMORENE THE PROFESSIONAL
CARPET CLEANER." Consent decree of condemnation and release under
bond. (I. F. & R. No. 171. I. D. Nos. 20642-20651.)
The product, "GLAMORENE THE PROFESSIONAL CARPET CLEANER,"
was st registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act.n the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear an
Statement as required by the act.
Spember 7, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
t t Court n libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 240
1-gallon cans, and 1,910 '-gallon cans, more or less, of "GLAMORENE THE
PROflSSIONAL CARPET CLEANER," at Washington, D. C., alleging that
the product was an economic poison which had been sold in the District of
& jiT~wite~ia^ *XCIG ~hQrn/vif' W C'tiin~'lrli t ^ l~nf CrlI i~ +h~ '~c+''i19 v


registered


with


violation


the Secretary


anded in that its labels did not bear an
and percentage of each of the active
rcentage of the inert ingredients, or an
if each of the active and each of the inert
the percentage of each present in each
percentage of the inert ingredients.
I. C,, claimed ownership of the product
or he purpose of removing the product
il Insecticide. Funricide. and Rodenticide


aK -" ----
Act, and consented to the entry of a condelftfion decree. On December 21, 1951,
a consent decree of condemnation was en and the product was released to
the claimant under bond.
113 T.asirh itt raiafreaH lonj ul unSchrnrnatWih*7!fAWs I TT TT I wraJ LannnnA


Thx,


:E


)51, by the Slade Co., Inc., in


oln Shn or about November 5, 1%
of the act
It was alleged that the product wa
Agriculture as required by section 4 of th
The product was alleged to be misbr
ingredient statement giving the name
ingredients, together with the total pe
agraedie statement giving the names c
ingredients in the descending order of
together With the total
ad. Company, Washington, D
requested its release under bond f
from under the provisions of the FederE


;;;;;;;;;;;;;


*~






8' ^.p..^. "
82 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, RODENTI

United States District Court a libel praying seizure for
fiscation of 83 5-pound cans and 15 1Ipoulhd cans, mo
LUX1" at San Jose, Calif., alleging thatThe product
which had been transported interstate, a Octc
Lux Products Company, Inc., from Kansas City, Mo., in
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
It was alleged that the product wa registered
Agriculture, as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was handed in t:
the containers of the product did not bew warning or
was necessary and, if complied witt, adequate to preve
and other vertebrate animals.
It was alleged that the product was lrther misbran
of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:
a ***
OEDAR-LUX
Guaranteed MOTH PROOF


for
*CLOSETS
*SHELVES
*DENS
*RUMPUS
ROOMS


:CIDE


ACT


[IF. P.R. N.J.


condemnation and con-
re or less, of "CEDAR-
ras an economic poison
ober 11, 1951, by Cedar-
violation of the Federal


with


the Secretary


hat the labels affixed to
caution statement which
'nt injury to living man


ded


within the meaning


for
*STUDIOS
*ATTICS
*CHESTS
*BUREAU
DRAWERS


*


MOTH REPELLENT
*


Remember, you can use CEDAR-LUX in
protect against moths but to capture th
odor of cedar and transplant it to your
rooms, attic or studio. For mothproofin
trunks, it is wonderful! POSTIVELY K
Mothproof all your closets this way


many ways, not only to
at fragrant, true woodsy
home in dens, recreation
e chests, drawers, boxes,
EEPS OUT MOTHS!


*
* Cedar-Luxing all clothes closets, chests, trunks, boxes,
anything and everything into which they pack or store things to
prevent moths and other insects getting to them.
*


OEDAR-LUX is recognized as a guardian against moths,
CEDAR-LUX seals all cracks and crevices, therefore
vermin, moths and dust.


keeps


OEDAR-LUX protects your wearables not for a few mouths but 12
months each year and keeps protecting them for years.


Now you can protect your furs, men's and women's garments,
ables, etc., by keeping them safe and sound, away from moth:
vermin, in a CEDAR-LUX CLOSET which you yourself can
with the aid of CEDAR-LUX and an ordinary paint brush.
you can apply CEDABR-LUX to the walls and ceiling of any ord


wear-
s and
make
Now
inary







j~:rr~


OF SUMINT


apparel would be enough to CEDARB LUSnot one but several closets
in your home. CEDAR-LUX is now giving positive protection in
thousands of homes throughout the la


* 9


CCB AR-LUX is endorsed in Farmer's Bulletin No.
protective against moths and larvae,


1353 as being


* *


S


.protection.
*


An ordinary closet was CEDAR-LUXED. Eight months later
60 adult moths were released in a vestibule built around the partly
open door of the CEDAR-LUXED closet. The only place that they
could get suitable material on which to lay eggs was in the closet.
No moths entered the closet and two weeks later no eggs were
found on the woolens in the closet.


* *


Cedar-Lux *
it is wonderful


* For mothproofing chests, drawers, boxes, trunks,
! POSITIVELY KEEPS OUT MOTHS!


*
Guaranteed
Proved by laboratory tests and backed by years of experience,
CEDAR-LUX is both mothproof and fireproof. Used extensively
by leading hotels, apartment houses and in thousands of homes.
*
Cedar-Lux
* guards your clothes against moths and other insects.
Don't Take Chances
Moths know no seasons and are no respector of new clothes or old
clothes. Why permit them to feast on dresses, skirts, men's suits
and other earables when it's such a, simple matter to brush on
CEDAR-LUX and play safe. Moths Iate cedar! Cedar-Lux keeps
them out.


CEUAR-LUX saves packing
bags. Slminates the buyb
insecticides.


* *:
Sand storing clothes
ig o $oth balls and
* *


in expensive
other costly


Make Every Clothes Closet a Mothnroof Cedar Cilnset!


Read What This U. S. D. A. Bulletin On led Cedar Says:
9
-U. S. D. A. Farmer's Bulletin No. 1353
*
Cedar-Lar
never fails to work
Just think-with an ordinary paint brush and OEDAR-LUX you
can mothproof and cedarize every closet in the house. Think of
the savings in motheaten clothing plus the incidental cost of con-
stantly buying moth preventatives which give only short lived


NOTICES


E:






FUNGICIDE


prevent moths and other insects from
boxes, and other places where things
clothes against moths and other insecl


and thus prevent the breeding of
and the presence of all insects; (7


proof cedar closet; (8
cent protection against
away from furs, men's
implied by the term


) would be a
moths; (9)
and women's
etc."; (10)


, AND ROE

getting into
are packed
ts; (6) woul


moths, the entr
) would make
Guardian again
vould protect an
garments, wea
would give pos


IENTICIDE


ACT


[I.F.L N.J.


clothes closets, chests, trunks,
and stored; (5) would guard
d seal all cracks and crevices


y of all moths and vermin,
every clothes closet a moth-
nst moths and give 100 per-
id keep all moths and vermin
rabies, and all other articles
itive protection for dresses,


skirts, suits, and men's Jackets against moths, larvae, ar
(11) would eliminate the buying of moth balls and other
whereas, the product was not endorsed n UI. S. D. A. Fa
1353 as being protective against moths and larvae and, wh4
the product: (1) Would not mothproof clothes closets, sto
drawers, shelves, rumpus rooms, studios1 chests, attics, reci
and other spaces; (2) would not stop, repel, or keep out
not protect dens, recreation rooms, attics, or studios against
not prevent moths and other insects from getting into clo
trunks, boxes, and other articles in wlidt things are pack
would not guard clothes against moth and other insec
seal all cracks and crevices and thus prevent the breeding


of all moths
every closet
moths or gi
and keep all
wearables, a
give positive
larvae, and


and vermin, or the present bf all insects; (
j ............-9 ....w.... jjfrl. .'* .. t t *


id all vermin; and
costly insecticides;
rmer's Bulletin No.
en used as directed,
)rage boxes, bureau
reaction rooms, dens,


moths;
t moths
these clo
ed and
ts; (6)
of moth
7) woul


I
SI
SI

B,
6
1!


a motmproo ceaar closet; i" would not be a guarna
ve 100 percent protection aggiant moths; (9) would n
Smoths and vermin away fw furs, men's and women's
and all other articles implied b~y the term "etc."; (10)
Protection for dresses, skirt; sits, or men's jackets again
all vermin; and (11) would gnt eliminate the buying of


(3) would
(4) would
ets, chests,
toured; (5)
would not
, the- entry
not make
an against
lot protect
garments,
would not
inst moths,
moth balls


and other costly insecticides.
It was alleged that the 5-pound cans of e product were further misbranded
within the meaning of the act in that the i stated in part:
s *
INGRSIENTS
Active-Cedarwood Oil 8% % Chiwrne 1%
Inactive---Ground Cedar and Other Material 91%%
*
INGREDIENTS
Active-Cedarwood Oil 8%%
Inactive-Ground Cedar and Other Maiterial 91%%
Active-Chlordane 1%
.- :"
which statements were false and mislelg since the product contained less
than 8% percent cedarwood oil, less thdi1 percent chlordane (technical), and


more than 91% percent inert (inactive)
of active and inert ingredients in the
the term "chlordane" was an insuffici
technical chlordane, which consisted of
and related compounds.
It was alleged that the 10-pound can
in that the labeling stated in part:


Ingredients; the total claimed percentage
product was more than 100 percent; and
ent designation for the active ingredient
octochloro-4, 7-methano-tetrahydro-indane

's of the product were further misbranded


* *
Tvr/r n fT1TrLTmnrr


INSECTICIDE,


|


E






134r-1691


NOTICES


139. Lack of registration and required information on label and misbranding of
"Better MOTH RINGS and Net Approximately 8 oz." U. S. v.
200 cases, more or less, of "Better MOTH RINGS Net Weight: Approxi-
mately 8 oz." Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond.
(I. F. & R. No. 178. I. D. Nos. 235 0, 23607, 23608 and 23609.)
The product, "Better MOTH RINGS," as not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide At. An examination of the product
showed that the labels affixed to the contaters of the product did not bear a
proper statement of net weight or measure of contents as required by the act.
AsBo the product was found to be misbranded within the meaning of the act
On February 29, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Seretary of Agriculture, filed in the
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 200
cases, more or less, of "Better MOTH RINGS Net Weight: Approximately 8 oz.,"
Arra, Ill, alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been
transported interstate, on or about January 3, 1952, by Better Brushes, Inc., from
Palmer, Mass., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act
t was legend that the product failed to comply with the act in that the
labels on its containers did not bear a proper statement of net weight or
of the contents of the containers in that the statement of net weight
appearing on the containers, to wit, "Net Weight: Approximately 8 oz.," was
indefinite and might be misleading.
t was alleged that the product was mibranded within the meaning of the
as in that the statement, "Net Weight: Approximately 8 oz.," borne on the
aielswas false and misleading since the average net weight of the containers
was substantially less than 8 ounces.
itwas alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:
Pret clhe ag mo* *t
~Protects clothes against moths


* S


Will last 4 to 6 months.


* *


BETTER MOTH RINGS


PROTECT


CLOTHES-BETTER


DIRECTIONS FOR USE
1. For effective moth control, articles should be thoroughly brushed
aM cleaned.
2. Hang BETTER Moth Rings high in closet; vapors settle rather

BETTER Moth Rings when used at rate of 1 lb. to 10 cubic feet,
protect clothes against moths in all stages of growth eggs,
larvae cocoons, etc.
arva,* *


hat such statements were false and leading since they implied or repre-
msented that the product when used as directed would provide efftteetive control
bof clothes against moths for a period A to 6 months, whereas the product,
when used as directed, would not provide+ ive control of clothes from moths
w for a period of from 4 to 6 months.


4 ..


iz;i;ii






INSCTCID[E,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N.J.


during Cedar Lining Moth Repellent." Default decree of co
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. &R. No. 179. I. D. No. 249
Thb roduet, "CEDA -iLtJXl,' was not registered under the Federal
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the labels affixed tu' the contain
product did not bear an ingredient state s required by the act.
On March 10, 1952 the United States Atttorney for the Ilistrict ol
setts, acting upon a report by the Secretdry of Agriculture, tiled in
States District Court a libel praying se tor condemnation and
of 95 5-pound cans, more or less, of "CE UX"; 200 copies, mo1
a report on "Testing of Cedar-Lux for killing and repellency";
more or less, captioned "Cedar-Lux Na Advertised"; 25 di
more or less, of "Cedar-Lux Nature's Own Lining With True Cedar
25 cardboard cartons, more or less, labe *-lb. Can Cedar-Lux N
during Cedar Lining Moth Repellent," at on, Mass., alleging that
was an economic poison which had bep4insported interstate, o


February 11, 1952, by Cedar-Lux Produ0 (o.,j Inc., from Kansas
violation of the act.


It was alleged that the product was
culture as required by section 4 of the
The product was alleged to be misbi
ingredient statement giving the name
gredients, together with total percent
or an ingredient statement giving the
the inert ingredients in the descending
each classification, together with the


idemnation,
)16.)
Insecticide,
iners of the


f Mass
the U
confisc
e or le
100 sI
splay
Odor"
nature'
the pr
)n or
ity, MI


not rgistered with the Secretary
act,
raa d in that its labeling did notl
a percentage of each of the a:1
ge at the inert ingredients, in the
names of each of the active and
order of the percentage of each p
total percentage of the iuert ing


achu-
nited
:ation
ss, of
hieets,
-ards,
; and
s En-
oduct
about
o., in


of Agri-


Sbeart
active
produ
I each
resent
;redien


in the product.
On April 21, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be dest royed.
141. Lack of registration of "EXTERM-O-MTE. U. S. v. 138 packages, more
or less, each containing two "EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZERS" and "EX-
TERM-O-LITE INSECTICIDE"; 50 display cards, more or less, captioned
"For Sure Pest Control Exterm-O-Lite Vaporizer"; and 50 circulars, more
or less, bearing the statement "9 TIMES MORE POWERFUL THAN DDT
EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZER OF PURE LINDANE." Consent decree
of condemnation and release under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 182. I. D. 24579.)
The product, "EXTERM-O-LITE," was not registered under the Fedleral In-
secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On April 4, 1952, the United States Attorny for the Southern District of Cali-
fornia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed i u the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and '-oniscationm


of 138 packages, more or less, each containing two "EX2I
IZERS" and. "EXTERM-O-LITE INSECTICIDE'; 50 (
less, captioned "For Sure Pest Control Exterm-0-Lite Va
lars, more or less, bearing the statement '%% TIMES MOR
DDT EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZER OF PURE LINI'.


"ERM-C
display
i-'rizer'
E PO\\
ANE,"


Calif., alleging that the product was an economic poison wilii-h ha,
ported interstate, on or about March 10. 1952, by the Calile-lTite ('1
pany, from Miami,'Fla., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was notgegistered with the S.vre
culture as required by section 4 of the act
Candle-Lite Chemical Company, of Miaii, Fla., claimed ownershiI
ucnet, and requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing;


,ITE
tr(Is,
and
RFr
Los


1 1w


VAPOR-
imore or
50 circu-
L THAN
Angeles,
en trans-


Iicin ir


Com-


tary of Agri-

j of the prod-
g it into cornm-


C






184-1691


On October
Washington,
District Cou
alleging ship
were in viol
In count 1
shipped and


48

xx
::N T'N
N*
^..IM .
^" K "
KK KK *
: !!M Il


~i -phiL
tCQrZ~


NOTICE S


r 8,1
actin
rt an
ments
ition
itw
deliv


conta i
and i


OF JUDGMENT


951, the United States Atney for the Western District of
g upon a report by the etary of Agriculture, filed in the
information against N. ft Rea, trading as Getzum Products,
;, in interstate commerce^ quantities of "CARCO-X" which
of the Federal InsecticidN Fangicide, and Rodenticide Act.
as alleged that the defe~ant, on or about October 18, 1948,
ered for shipment from Sumner, Wash., to Missoula, Mont.,
miners and 24 1-pint containers of a product known as
that:


I, The product was not registered with the Se
Sgrequired by section 4 of the act.
kThe product was misbranded within the mean
labeling bore statements relative to the pr"
which were false and misleading as the s
i: implied that the product contained 5 percent
Sand. that when used as directed, it would c
tables and all weevils and borers on flower
on roses; and would be "your garden protect
contained less than 5 percent of hexachlo
used as directed would not control all wee'
weevils and borers on flowers; would not r
and Would not be "your garden protector."
. The product was further misbranded within


cretary


of Agriculture


ring of the act in that its
oduct and its ingredients
statements represented or


of hexachlorocyclo
control all weevils
:s; would repel all
tor"; whereas the
rocyclohexane, an
vils on vegetables


hexane,
on veg-
insects
product
d when
and all


'epel all insects on roses;


the meaning


of the act


Sin: that its labels did not contain a warning or caution statement which
1was necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to
living man and other vertebrate animals in that the labels should
have contained but did not contain suitable warnings or cautions
against the danger of skin irritation .or injury from inhalation in
ituse of the product.
S. >The product, when used as directed," would be injurious to vegetation
r to which applied, since when so used on roses it would injure the
foliagee thereof and when so used on certain food crops, including lima
beans and potatoes, it would injure the flavor of such crops, and in
~that for these reasons the labeling accompanying the product did not
contain directions for use which were necessary and, if complied with,
Adequate for protection of the public.
, The product was adulterated within the meaning of the act in that its
:strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under
which it was sold, since its labeling stated that it contained 5 percent
of hexaehloroeyclohexane, whereas the product contained less than
1 5 pftcent of herachlorocyclohexane.


Ieount 2 it was alleged that the defendant, on or about March
pped and delivered for shipment from Sumner, Wash., to Salem,
*at containers, 24 1-quart containers, and 6 1-gallon containers of
known as "CAROO-X" and that


: The pliroduct was misbranded within
idabeling bore statements, relative
which were false and misleading :
reptsented that the product cont
hexane and that, when used as-
mIide on roses, Fairy Rings It
heg hbies and flowers, all bords
mat rmnn*tn. .n inie on seiai


21, 1949,
Oreg., 48
a product


the meaning of the act in that its
to the product and its ingredients,
in that these statements implied or
ained 5 percent of hexachlorocyclo-
directed, it would control powdery
lawns, potato scab, all weevils on
i and similar pests on flowers, all
ior. nen. an d neaeh tres and on


4


Cp"~td


i


*






i~g g ~ TIC. D K


~FINGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N. J.


and lee in chicken houses, all Insects on roses, and al
sects; would nt be "your garden protector"; and wouldk
reclaimer, msrn
2 The product was farther misbranded within the meaning
that its labels did not contain a warning or caution sta
was necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prei
living man and other vertebrate animals in that the
have contained but did not contain suitable warning
against the danger of skin irritation or injury from inh
use of the product.
3. The product was further misbran e within the meaning
that, when used as directed, it would be injurious to
which applied, since when so u zoses it would mnu
thereof and when so used on certain food crops, include
and potatoes, it would injure or of such crops, a
these reasons the labeling accompanying the product di
directions for use which were neqiry and, if complied
for protection of the public.
4. The product was adulterated wit e meaning of the
strength or purity fell below th essed standard or
which it was sold, since its lab stated in part tha
5 percent of hexachlorocyclohexane, whereas the prod
less than 5 percent of hexachlorocyiotIexane.
n count 3 it was alleged that the defenditt, on or about April 4
L delivered for shipment from Sumneljash., to Salem, Ore
tainers, 12 1-quart containers, and 6 1 n containers of a p
'CARCO-X" and that:


1 crawling in-
1 not be a soil
of the act in
itement which
rent injury to
labels should
s or cautions
alation in the


of the act in
vegetation to
ire the foliage
ng lima beans
nd in that for
Ld not contain


with,


adequate


eact in that its
quality under
t it contained
luct contained


, 1949, shipped
?g., 72 -pint
product known


1. The product was misbranded within te meaning of the act in that its
labeling bore statements relative to the product and its ingredients
which were false and misleading inee the labeling represented or
implied that the product contained percent of hexachblorocyclohexane
and that, when used as directed, would control all weevils on vege-
tables and flowers, all borers an inlar pests on flowers, Fairy Rings
in lawns, all soil insects, all egg pf mites and aphis, and all insect
eggs in buildings; would repel all jsects on roses, all crawling insects,
all insects that lay eggs that hath tnto worms or maggots, and mites
and lice in chicken houses; woui be "your garden protector"; and
would be a soil reclaimer; whereas the product contained less than
5 percent of hexachlorocyclohexaw and, when used as directed, would
not control all weevils on veget~b3e And flowers, all borers and similar
pests on flowers, Fairy Rings in lats, all soil insects, all eggs of mites
and aphis, and all insect eggs in buildings; would not repel all insects
on roses, all crawling insects, all dht that lay eggs that hatch into
worms, or maggots, and mites an in chicken houses; would not be
"your garden protector"; and wold not be a soil reclaimer.
2. The product was further misbranc within the meaning of the act in
that, when used as directed, it wod be injurious to vegetation to
which applied, since when so us roses it would injure the foliage
thereof and when so used on cert food crops, including lima beans
and potatoes, it would injure th. avor of sueh crops, and in that,
for these reasons, the labeling amomanying the product did not con-
tain directions for use which were necessary and, if complied with,
adequate for protection of the p e.


I
1:
and
con
as'






134-169]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


Lack of registration and
COEF 5." U. S. v. 1
less, of "FAZT PINE
condemnation, forfeit


25190.) x
Thjprodut, "FAZT PINE OIL DISIN flkNT COEF 5"
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, a Rodenticide Act
tion of the product showed that the lae asixed to the
product did not bear an ingredient statement as required by
On April 22, 1952, the United States AttorneY for the Dis
acting upon a report by the Secretary of A gilture, filed in
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation ai
1 55-gallon drum and 6 5-gallon containers, more or less,
OIL DISINFECTANT COEF 5," at Omaha, Nebr., alleging
was an economic poison which had been transported intern
January 22, 1952, by the Continental Soap Corporation, froi
.violation of the act.
IT was alleged that the product was not registered with
rwielture a required by section 4 of the act.


was not registered
, and an examina-


containers


the
trict
the
nd c
of
tha


of the


act.
of Nebraska,
United States
onfiscation of
"FAZT PINE
t the product


state, on or about
m Chicago, Ill., in


the Secretary


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
namie ai nd percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total
e g of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement
ing the names of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the
4dq:z order of the percentage of each present in each classification, to-
g4lier wit the total percentage of the inert" ingredients, in the product.
On September 22, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemna-
Sofelture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered
to destroy the product.

144. Lack of registration and required information on labeling, adulteration,
and misbranding of "Py. Extract." U. S. v. 1 55-gallon container, more
or less, of "Py. Extract." Consent decree of condemnation and release
under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 174. I. D. No. 24769.)
The product, "Py. Extract," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
ugiced, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product showed that
the label affixed to the container of the product did not bear certain information
required by the act. The product was also found to be adulterated and mis-
branded within the meaning of the act.
On April 28, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Flor-
ida, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United


States District Court a li
of 1 55-gallon container,
alleging the product was
state1 on or about Janua
Mass., in Violation of the
It was alleged that the
culture as required by sec
It was alleged that the
in that the label affixed t
of the net weight or meas
It was alleged that the


in that the label affixed t
:"."""i". :'** 'U.S*' ** ::> '** ***


I
I
I



I


L


ibel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation


more or less, of Py. Extract, at Jacksonville, IFla.,
an economic poison which had been transported inter-
ry 7, 1952, by Baird & McGuire, Inc., from Holbrook,
act.
product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-


tion 4 of the act.
product failed to comply with the provisions
o the container of the product did not bear a
ure of the contents of the container.
product failed to comply with the provisions
o the container of the product did not bear a
n~ .j I. -. __ ._ ^-- C1^:.'-:-:-.-. :_* -^ h .- J -K^ A -- --- ar JW __-- a- --_ a* J-l*:


I misbranding f T PINE OIL DISINFECTANT
55-gallon dri 6 5-gallon containers, more or
OIL DISINF COEF 5." Default decree of
ure, and destrin (I. F. & R. No. 183. I. D. No.


of the act
statement

of the act
statement
:* *:*** ---*1' J- f Ifa


^""9~~i"";jj






flISECITICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N. J.


It was alleged that the prduet was misbranded within the meaning of the act
in that its labeling boretheAtatement, "Py. Extract," which was false or mislead-
ing since the statement Imied or represented that the product consisted wholly
of an extract of pyrethwn, hereas the product contained another active ingredi-
ent, to wit, dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT).
It was alleged that the product was fu tWrmisbranded within the meaning of
the act in that the lalbe ag accompanying the product did not contain directions
for use which were necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection
of the public.
It was alleged that the product was fu aisbranded in that its label did not
bear a warning or caution statement whicx was necessary, and, if complied with,
adequate for the protection of the public.
It was alleged that the product was r misbranded in that the label
affixed to the container of the product did t ear an ingredient statement giving
the name and percentage of each of the a ngredients, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients, in the t, or an ingredient statement giv-
ing the names of each of the active an ach of the inert ingredients in the
descending order of the percentage of eac esent in each classification, together
with the total percentage of the inert in~Ients, in the product.
Baird & McGuire, Inc., of Holbrook, 1^ claimed ownership of the product
and requested its release under bond for purposee of bringing it into compli-
ance with the act, and consented to the en of a condemnation decree. On June
16, 1952, a decree of condemnation was 0tered, and it was ordered that the
product be released to the claimant under bond.
145. Lack of registration and misbrandin1iof "MYSTIC FRESH-UP FOR PER-
FECT CARPET CARE." U. S. v. !19 1-gallon cans, more or less, of
"MYSTIC FRESH-UP FOR PERFECT CARPET CARE." Decree of con-
demnation and forfeiture. (I. F. & No. 185. I. D. No. 20923.)
The product, "MYSTIC FRESH-UP FOR PERFECT CARPET CARE," was
not registered under the Federal InsecticId4 Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
An examination of the product showed t the ingredient statement on the
labels affixed to the containers of the praet did not appear on that part of
the immediate containers which is pres~tted or displayed under customary
conditions of purchase and the term "Inert igredients" was less prominent than
the term "Active Ingredients."
On May 7, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure fore condemnation and confiscation of
119 1-gallon cans, more or less, of "MYSTIY FRESH-UP FOR PERFECT CAR-
PET CARE," at Washington, D. C., alleginghat the product was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate, on or about April 15, 1952, and
April 16, 1952, by Mystic Foam Corporation, fro Cleveland, Ohio, in violation
of the act.
It was alleged that the product was npt registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the ingredient statement
appearing on the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not appear
on that part of the immediate containers jf the retail package which is pre-
sented or displayed under customary o tons of purchase, and the term
"Inert ingredients" was less prominent tM the term "Active Ingredients."
On August 14, 1952, no claimant havinI appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered-that the product be delivered to
sanin~er MWnn.rinli ThTnital for its TIst nnlv nndr nnt f' slnio





134-189]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


Waterbury, Conn., alleging that the produft was an economic poison which had
been transported interstate, on or about Ma*h 26, 1952, by Fumol Corporation,
from Long Island City, N. Y., in violation o e act.
It was alleged that the product was npt registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the at
On July 23, 1952, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and
it was ordered that the product be delivered to a public institution, within
the State of Connecticut, such as a hospital or county farm, for use against flies,
ants, roaches, or similar insects.
147. Lack of registration of "FUMOL 110 INSECT SPRAY." U. S. v. 2 55-gallon
< drums, more or less, of "FUMOL 110 INSECT SPRAY?" Default decree
of condemnation and forfeiture. (LF. & R. No. 188. I. D. No. 24959.)
The product, "FUMOL 110 INSECT SPRAY," was not registered under the
B sal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On May 28, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,
pon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 2
gafou drums, more or less, of "FUMOL 110 INSECT SPRAY," at Waterbury,
Onam., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been trans-
purked interstate, on or about March 26, 1952, by the Fumol Corporation, from
Long IsTand City, N. Y., in violation of the act.
*It ws alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
uAgricuture as required by section 4 of the act.
On uy 24, 1952, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it
was ordered that the product be delivered to a public institution, within the
State of Connecticut, such as a hospital or county farm, for use against flies,
ants, roaches, or similar insects.


141 Lack of registration of "EXTERM-O-LITE." U. S. v. 660 packages, more
por less, each containing two "EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZERS" and
'OXTRMt-O-LITE INSECTICIDE"; 50 display cards, more or less, cap-
*FOR SURE PEST CONTROL EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZER";
!! and 5 circulars, more or less, bearing the statement "9 TIMES MORE
POWERFUL THAN DDT EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZER OF PURE
X rANREY Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond.
(I. W. & R. No. 1S 1. .D. No. 24578.)
rod t, "EXTERM-O-LITE," was not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On April 4, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
id States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
Stion of 600 packages, more or less, each containing two "EXTERM-O-
APORI RS" and "EXTERM-O-LITE INSECTICIDE"; 50 display cards,
p 1r Isc captioned "FOR SURE PEST CONTROL EXTERM-O-LITE
Sand 50 circulars, more or ess, bearing the statement "9 TIMES
MO POWtRFUL THAN DDT EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZER OF PURE
LINDANE," at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the product waS an economic
poison which had been transported interstae, on or about February 27, 1952,
S y the Candle-Lite Chemical Company, from Miami, Fla., in violation of the act.
aged that the product wasqo registered with the Secretary of
Agricuture as required by section 4 of the a
Candle-Lite Chemical Co., of Miami, Fi., claimed ownership of the product
ai requested its release under bond foro puIrpose of bringing it into cornm-


::"






INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


Aim


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. 1J.


to have a phenol coefficient of 2.8 instead of a phenol coefficient of 5, as was
claimed.
On June 6, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,
actrai upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 62
1-gallon containers, or less, of "PYNEEN DISINFECTANT COEFFICIENT
5," at Trenton, N. J. alBhglg-that the product was an economic poison which had
been transported intstte on or about July 10, 1951, by The Chemical Services
Company (Chemical Services of Baltimore), from Baltimore, Md., in violation
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that product was misbranded in that the statements:


"An
ODORITE
PRODUCT
PYNEEN
DISINFECTANT
COEFFICIENT 5

JIRECTIO R USE
Be sure all dirt is swept up and removed before
infectant. For proper disinfection, surface should 1
wetted with disinfectant solution ribed below:
Solution A: Uselpart of Dis. wi 100 parts water
Solution B: Use 1 part of Dis. it 200 parts water
Coefflcent 5 F. D. Against E. Typhi
AS A DISIflCTANT
For Urinals and Toilets: Clean with Solution
cess solution in pail down urinal drai
For Public Places: In schools, ls, theatres, off


etc., wash freely all floors,
Cuspidors: Clean with
cuspidor.
Garbage Receptacles, F
Solution A.
Telephone and Dietatin
with Solution A.
Kennels, Stables, Ohiu


applying dis-
be thoroughly


Pour ex-


ice buildings,


desks, etc., with Solution A.
Solution A. Leave small amount in each


3te.


Wash entire surface thoroughly with


g Machine Mouthpieces: Wash thoroughly


cen Houses


Wash all surfaces thor-


roughly with Solution A. Altlw to remain for approximately 10
minutes and then mop up thoroughly with clear water.
*
borne on the labels affixed to the containers of the product were false and mis-
leading since they implied or represented that the product had a phenol co-
efficient of 5, and that the product, when used as directed, would disinfect all
articles, places, and surfaces listed in such statements and those implied by the
term "etc.,r whereas the product had a phenol less than 5 and the product, when
used as directed, would not disinfect all articles, places, and surfaces listed on


its labeling or those implied by the term


It was alleged that the product
act in that its standard or purity
as expressed on its label, since
TfTiTWThrITrwA WAT l ^ ,nlTOTrrNP


"etc."
s adulterated within the meaning of th e.
below the professed standard or quality
labeling bore the statement "PYNEEN
rhorana th, nmrnilot had a nhpnol en-. .


! 1






134-169]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


TDE-DDD-RHOTHANE"; 30 50-pound bags, more or less, of "FUCO
BRAND 3-5-0 COTTON DUST"; ui4 50-pound bags, more or less, of
"3-5-40 COTTON DUST." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 198. D. No. 25759, 25760, and 25761.)
The products, "FUCO BRAND 5% A-Pf (All Purpose) TOBACCO DUST
TDE-DDD-RHOTHANE," "FUCO BRAND COTTON DUST," and "8-5-40
COTTON DUST," were not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act.
On July 3, 1952, the United States Attozn for the Middle District of Georgia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Arnulture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for ademnation and confiscation of 75
50-pound bags, more or less, of "FUCO SAND 5% A-P 1% (All Purpose)
TOBACCO DUST TDE-DDD-RHOTHANt; 80 50-pound bags, more or less,
of "FUCO BRAND 3--5-0 COTTON DUST; and 4 50-pound bags, more or less,
of "3-5-40 COTTON DUST," at Valdosta $a., alleging that the products were
economic poisons which had been transpited interstate, on or about May 23,
1952, and May 27, 1952, by Futch Produce *., from Live Oak, Fla., in violation


of the act.
It was alleged that
Agriculture as required
On August 28, 1952,
and the United States


the products were not registered with the Secretary of
by section 4 of the apt
a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered,
Marshal was ordered to destroy the products.


151. Adulteration


misbranding


"FORTIFIED


DISINFECTANT


PINE


OIL COEF. 3 F. D. A." U. S. v. 59 1-gallon containers, more or less, of
"FORTIFIED DISINFECTANT PINE OIL COEF. 3 F. D. A." Default
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 151.
I. D. No. 22398.)
An examination of a sample of "FORTIFIED DISINFECTANT PINE OIL
COEF. 3 F. D. A." showed that this product consisted of pine oil, soap, water,
chlorinated phenols, isopropyl alcohol, and wood naphtha. When tested, the
product was found to have a phenol coefficient of 0.4 instead of a phenol coefficient
of 3 as claimed.
On June 28, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 59
1-gallon containers, more or less, of "FORTIFIED DISINFECTANT PINE OIL
COEF. 3 F. D. A." alleging that the product was an economic poison which had
been transported interstate, on or about February 28, 1951, by Uncle Sam
Chemical Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y., in violation of the Federal Insecticide,
Flngicide, and Rodenticide Act.
it was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning of the act
is that the statements:
"FORTIFIED
DISINFECTANT
PINE OIL
P I N E *'*;:* ::::*::. X X .*..::::. :.* ^-__ _^


Active Ingredients
Pine Oil; Isproponol
Mono chloro orthopbenylphenol
Inert In lents
Water
sCl^A "i~


implied or re


irei


a'na 1 oa


rented that the product a pine oil disinfecta]
n43.tn.. 4nn aS-f nil ndlInar.^/h nfl nd-lnj~ 4-1. n w*nn-i*j


nt containing
nllAJ A ) hn^1Ifan






INSECTICIDE,


FT GICIDE, AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N.J.


"FORTIFIED
[DISINFECTANT
-PINEJOL
SCoef. 1 F. D. A.
Active In"redients
Pine Oil; Isoproponol
Mono ehloro orthophenyiphenol
Inert Ingre ent
Water
*Wffy-lt^ *

A pleasant, efficacious product disinfecting and
Added to water in cleaning, it insure siaorough sanitratrio
a marvelous odor of pine woods.
DIRECTIONS


deodorizing.
n and leaves


General Cleaning and DisinfeetAing: Dilute one part of
fectant with 60 parts of lukewarm scrubbing solution. Pour
bing solution on disinfectant. Excellent for washing floors,
work, sinks, walls, basements, telephone booths, etc. It a
removing grease, dirt and odors in public places, schools,
theatres, office buildings home, etc.


disin-
scrub-
wood-
ids in
hotels,


*
CONTENTS ONE GALLON

borne on the labels affixed to the containers of the product were false and mis-
leading since the statements implied or represented that the product: (1) Con-
tained no oil other than pine oil; (2) was a fortified pine oil disinfectant; (3)
had a net content of 1 gallon; (4) had a phenol coefficient of 3 F. D. A.; and (5)
when used as directed could be relied upon to disinfect floors, woodwork, sinks,
walls, basements, telephone booths, public places, schools, hotels, theaters, office
buildings, home, or other places implied by the abbreviation "etc."; whereas, the
product: (1) Contained oil other than pine oil; (2) was not a fortified pine oil
disinfectant; (3) had a net content of less than 1 gallon; (4; had a phenol
coefficient of less than 3 F. D. A.; and (5) when used as directed could not be
relied upon to disinfect floors, woodwork, sinks, walls, basements, telephone
booths, public places, schools, hotels, theaters, office buildings, hornet, or other
places implied by the abbreviation "etc."
On August 13, 1951, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and
the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the product.
152. Lack of registration and required information and misbranding of "PYNOL
18-55-49." U. S. v. 2 55-gallon drums more or less, of "PYNOL 18-55-49."
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R.
No. 152. I.D. No. 21662.)


The product, "PYNOL 18-55-49," was not registered under tlhe
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examination of thie
that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did no'
statement of net weight or measure of contents 6f the containers.
tion further showed that the labels did not contain directions for
necessary and, if complied with, adequate fr thb protection of
in knt At A iJ n4 J .n nnrn nLnn4~wr* .anrg4nA by .I


Federal Insecti-
product showed
t bear a proper
The examina-
use which were
the public; the





134-169]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


It was alleged that:


The product was not registered with te Secretary of Agriculture as re-
quired by section 4 of the act.


2. The product failed to comply
containers of the product d


or
net
of
3. The
wa.
nat
the
4. The
pro
if c
5. The


measure of contents of
contents in terms of po
this kind and amount is
product was misbranded
s false and misleading n
lional Paper Co., Southe


product
product
duct did
complied
product


with the act in that the labels affixed to the
id not bear a proper statement of net weight
the containers in that the labels stated the
funds, whereas the net content of a product
required to be stated in terms of gallons.
in that its labeling bore a statement which
that it implied or represented that the Inter-
rn Kraft Division, was the manufacturer of


, whereas the said company was not the manufacturer.
was misbranded in that the labeling accompanying
I not contain directions for use which were necessary
with, adequate for the protection of the public.
was further misbranded in that its labeling did not


an ingredient statement giving the name and
ingredient, together with the total percentage
in the product, or an ingredient statement
active ingredient, together with the name of
of the inert ingredients, in the product.


the
and,
bear


percentage of each active
e of the inert ingredients,
giving the name of each
each and total percentage


On August 10, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
anAd forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.

SLack of registration and misbranding of "SABADILLA SEED POW-
.DERED"; "POWDERED SABADILLA SEED AND SULPHUR MIXED
rFOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Powdered Sabadilla Seed-33% Sulphur-
67%)"; and "POWDERED SABADILLA SEED AND SULPHUR MIXED
FR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Powdered Sabadilla Seed-50% Sul-
plkr-5%)." U. S. v. 69 1-pound cartons, more or less, of "SABADILLA
f POWDERED"; 89 1-pound cartons, more or less, of "POWDERED
A.LLA SEED AND SULPHUR MIXED FOR LICE ON LIVE-
S C (Powdered Sabadilla Seed-33% Sulphur-67%)"; and 89 1-pound
earas, more or less, of "POWDERED SABADILLA SEED AND SUL-
PHUR MIXED FOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Powdered Sabadilla Seed-
50% Sulphur-50%)" Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 153. I. D. Nos. 22179, 22180, and 22181.)
The products, "SABADILLA SEED POWDERED," "POWDERED SABA-
A SEED AND SULPHUR MIXED FOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Pow-
dered SadilSa eed-33% Sulphur--67%)," and "POWDERED SABADILLA
lED AND SUiLPHUR MIXED FOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Powdered
Sabadla Seed--0% Sulphur 50%)," were not registered under the Federal
nsetiide, Wungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examination of the prod-
cts showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the products did not
leir an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On l, 1951, the United States attorney for the District of North Dakota,


""


uort by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
iw, more or less, of "SABADILLA SEED POWDERED";
is, more or less, of "POWDERED SABADILLA SEED AND
!D FOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Powdered Sabadilla Seed-
% ) "; and 89 1-pound cartons, more or less, of "POWDERED
ED AND SULPHUR MIXED FOR IWCE ON LIVESTOCK
*- -i Hj^/ .-.t ^l ff:* y Y W Y 5? l ^T -1^^ ^ .1 .^


1.


Ilil


anting- upon a repi
District Court a
01 -earto
89 1-pound carton
SULil HuR MiXE
33%7 Sulphur-67'
SABADILLA SE]
/ i fl -.j .. .. .3 LN. i ^-





INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND RODENTICIDE


ACT


[i. F. R. N.J.


Ingredients, together with the total percentage ofl
products, or an ingredient statement giving the na
each of the infrt ingrediehts in the descending or
present i each classification, together with the
ingredients, in the products.
On August 81, 1951, a decree of condemnation
and the United States Marslial was orto de


the inert ingredients, in the
tmes of each of the active and
der of the percentage of each
total percentage of the inert


I and forfeiture was
stroyy the products.


154. Misbranding and adulteration of "HAR 0 G. S. A. Disinfectant
Method" and "CRYSO G. S. A. Dnt Coef 5 FDA Met
219 5-gallon cans, more or less; RCO G. S. A. Disi
SFDA Method"and 1,404 1-gallon cans, more or less, of "C
Disinfectant Cot 5 FDA Method sentt decree of cond
release under bond. (I. F. & 204. I.D. Nus. 2u93
24647.)
Examinations of '"HARCO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA
"OCRYSO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 F ethod" showed that t
consisted chiefly of water with small nts of pine oil, so
alcohol, and chlorinated phenols. Wh tested, two samples
G. S. A. Disinfectant Cof 5 FDA Method found to have an a'
coefficient of 2.6 instead of a phenol coefficient of 5 as claimed.
"'RYSO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 F1'DA Method" was found to I
coefficient of 2.1 instead of a phenol coe ffcet of 5 as was claimed
On August 12, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District
acting upon a report by the Secretary of agriculture, filed in the
District Court a libel praying seizure I# endemnation and c(
219 5-gallon cans, more ofr less, of "HAW G.0 S. A. Disinfectan
Method" and 1,404 1-gallon cans, more or 4e, of "CRYSO G. S. A
oef 5 FDA Method," at Washington, D ~O, alleging that the p
economic poisons which had been transported interstate, on or a
1952, and July 7, 1952, by the Harley Soap Company, from Phil:
min violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide


entered,


it Coef 5 1
hod." U.
nfectant
RYSO G.
emnation
14, 24646,


FDA
S.v.
Coef
S.A.
and
and


Method" and
these products
ap, isopropyl
of "HARCO
average phenol
A sample of
iave a phenol


d.
of Columbia,
United States
mfiscation of
t Coef 5 FDA


. Disinf
products
bout Ju
adelphia
Act.


ectant
were
ly 12,
, Pa.,


It was alleged that the "HARCO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method"
was misbranded in that the statements:
** *
Harco G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method
Active Ingredients. Soap Pine oil, Ortho-benzyl-parachloro-phenol
Inert Ingredients 85% Water, Isopropyl Alcohol
*


DIRECTIONS


FOR


USEB OF


THIS


DISINFECTANT


FOR URINALS AND TOILETS--They should b
with a pail of water containing 1/ pint of Disinfec
quarts of water. When the toilet room has been ch
of solution should be utilized by pouring it down
in this way deodorizing the drains & traps. TO
FECTING of water closets, toilet bowls-clean and
each day with a solution of 1 part Disinfectant to 10
This solution should also be used for washing off to
as entire surface of vessel.
IN PUBLIC PLACES-Schools, hotels, theatres, st4
ings, colleges ete.--spray freely a solution of 1 par
100 parts of water so that all infected areas are c
(ITTRPITTIm..--n .ioan with nilntinn 1 tn 100 nnv1 loan


e cleaned daily
tant to every 25
eaned the pailful
the urinal drain.
AID IN DISIN-
flush the hopper
0 parts of water.
ilet seats as well


ores, office build-
t Disinfectant to
covered.
n a cmall omannnt






134-1691


NOTICES


OF JVDGMNT


FOR SLAUGHTER
solution of 1 to 100
(NOTE) % pint of
to 100 dilution.


HOUSES-Wash vats, slaughter room, etc. with
pour down drain to dorise.
Disinfectant to ts of water constitutes a 1
*


borne on the labels affixed to the containers of the product were false and mis-
leading since the product had a phenol c eent of less than 5 and when used
as directed the product would not disinfect tie articles, places, or surfaces listed
on its labeling or implied by the term "etc."


It was alleged thi
was adulterated wit
below the professed
labeling bore the st
phenol coefficient of
It was alleged th
was misbranded in


at the "HARCO G. S t Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method"
thin the meaning of the te in that its strength or purity fell
standard or quality atspressed on its labeling since the
atement "Coef 5 FDA Method" whereas the product had a
less than 5.
at the "CRYSO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method"


that the statements:


Cryso G S A Disinfectant Clef 5 FDA Method


Active Ingredients Soap pine oil, Ortho benzyl-parachloro-phenol
Inert Ingredients, 85% Water, Isopropyl Alcohol
IIN OR U O *I I
DIRECTIONS FOR USE OF THIS DISINFECTANT


> FOR URINALS AND TOILETS-They should be cleaned daily with
a, plil of water containing % pint of Disinfectant to every 25 quarts
of water. When the toilet room has been cleaned the pailful of solu-
Stion Ashould be utilized by pouring it down the urinal drain in this
t way deodorizing the drains & traps.
p TO AID IN DISINFECTING of water closets, toilet bowls-Clean
1Sush the hopper each day with a solution of 1 part Disinfectant
jarts water. This should also be used for washing off toilet
seats as well as entire surface of vessel.
IN PUBLIC PLACES-Schools, hotels, theatres, stores, office build-
iuigs, cdleges, etc.--spray freely a solution of 1 part Disinfectant to
100 parts of water so that all infected areas are covered.
CBSPIDQRMS-"ean with solution 1 to 100 and leave a small amount
n oW the solution in the cuspidor to aid in killing germs and overcome
;unpleasant odors.
FOR OUTDOOR CLOSETS-Garbage receptacles, stables, etc.-
wash freely with 1 part of Disinfectant to 100 of water. Wash
entire eurfte
FOR STABLES-Where animals are kept spray freely with a 1 to
100 diction. Be sure all dirt is removed before spraying and that
Sentire infected area is sprayed.
if OR CLEANING CHICKEN COOPS, hen houses, pigeon houses
etc.-wash up with a solution of 1 to 100.
FOR SLAUGHTER HOUSES-Wash vats, slaughter room, etc. with
sltion of 1 to 100, pour down drain to deodorize.
(Note) % pint of Disinfectant to 25 quarts of water constitutes a
1 to 100 dilution.


I"


)orne on the labe


leading since the


ls affixed to the containers of the product were false and mis-
product had a phenol coefficient of less than 5 and, when used


2<


* *fl


;;


t"


- -


I ; i :





INS~ U TI OX DR


FUNGICIDE,


AND RODE


NTICIDE


ACT


11. F. R. N. J.


155. Lack of registration and misbranding of "Cedar-WalL" U. S. v. 351 5-pound
containers, 699 10-pound containers, and 48 50-pound containers, more or
less, of "Cedar Wall." Consent decree of condemnation and release under
bond. (I. F.&B.No. 155. I.D.No.22586.)
The product, "Cedar-Wall," was not reptered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodentleide Act, and an examination of the product showed
that the labels afed to the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient
statement as required by the act.
On July 18, 1951, the United Statesey for the Southern District of
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of 351 5-pound containers, 69 und containers, and 48 50-pound
containers, more or less, of Oedar-Wal itLos Angeles, Calif., alleging tijat
the product was an economic poison whih had been transported interstate, on
or about April 27, 1951, by Edward L. Mie Company, from Cambridge, Mass.,
in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was npt registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of theact.
The product was alleged to be misbred in that the labels affixed to the
containers of the product did not bear an edient statement giving the name
and percentage of each active ingredie, 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 prtftt.
Harry Landers, doing business as Pacit trading Company, and Jerome Paul,
Los Angeles, Calif., claimed ownership o the product and requested its release
under bond for the purpose of removing il economic poison claims from the
labeling of the seized product, and consenawi to the entry of a condemnation
decree. On August 10, 1951, a decree of coniemnation was entered, and it was
ordered that the product be released to the claimnts under bond.
156, Lack of required information on label misbranding, and adulteration of
"BY-U PINE OIL DISINFECTAlNT tcient: 5 F. D. A." U. S. v. 7
55-gallon drums, more or less, of BY-U PINE OIL DISINFECTANT
Coefficient 5 F. D. A'." Consent deqee of condemnation and release under
bond. (I. F. & R.No. 156. LD. No.21Q5)
An examination of a sample of "BY-U PI1N OIL DISINFECTANT Coefficient:
5 F. D. A." showed that thiswproduct consisted of pine oil, soap, water, isopropyl
alcohol, and mineral oil. When tested, the product was found to have a phenol
coefficient of 8.5 instead of a phenol coefficient of 5 as claimed.
On August 15, 1951, the United States ttomney for the Southern District of
Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praylg seizure tor condemnation and
confiscation of 7 55-gallon drums, more or 1ess ,of "BY-U PINE OIL DISIN-
FECTANT Coefficient: 5 F. D. A." at Sa Ga., alleging that the product
was an economic poison which had been ta bted interstate, on or about
February 27, 1951, by Bayou Industries, ma., from Arabi, La., in violation of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenlaoide Act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements:
S *S


BY-U
PINE OIL DISISfPA.NT
Active Ingredients: Steam Distiled Pine Oil and
e -*** "'* ***** r^ ^ VW T a^^ -f^^^ -*W K^- ^/ *"" -"W^ -K*^


Soap






134-169]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


DIRECTIONS
fecting AGAINS
NOTE:-Betteri
amount of pine
all infected sur
or refuse.


FOR
'lisinf
deodo
TOIL


PINE OIL DISTANT

Coefficient: 5
Suse as a Preventatite Measure and Aid in Disin-
B. TYPHOSUS
asults are obtained b dding water to the proper
disinfectant. Dis tant Solution should cover
*es after sweeping or otherwise removing all dirt
*- "-j ^~


GENERAL (CLEANING AND DNFECTING:-Use 1 part
ectant to 1(0) parts of water Wash floors, and use for
rizing sinks, refrigerators, etc.
ET ROOMS :-Use 1 part disi nt to 100 parts of water.


Wash seats, bathtub, bowls, urinal ;inks, floors, and baseboards
at least twice a day.
PUBLIC PLACES:-Wash with a solution of 1 art disinfectant


Sto 100 parts of water, so as to cover -al possible area
Wor schools, institutions, public buildings etc.
re tstituitions, public e
ARAGE CANS, REFUSE PAUA OEILARS
LOSETS :-Thoroughly saturate bh sprinking or
solution of 1 part disinfectant to 90 parts of water.
>mirepelling and preventing breeding t Ies and certain
,sts, and cheek putrefactive action Repeat treaty
+J ~# necessary.
n CHICKEN COOPS, YARDS, PENS, and. STABLES
m all dirt and refuse, then wash thoroughly with
1 part disinfectant to 100 parts of water4
DUO0 CONVEYANCES:--Scrub floors, wipe seats
ll1'c~, ta.,th.s, toilets, with a solution of 1 part disinf
parts of water. Use for cleaning pastries and passai
:**~~~ ~ ~~~~~ fy-~iili ^ -.v. r ^ 'tJk myS ^K --AV ^LV\ A 'rA^Pl^i. fW-//^ rjc^'*!


s of infection.

, OUTDOOR
spraying with
This will aid
n other insect
nent as often
:-Clean free
a solution of


i, wash wood-
ectant to 100
geways.


borne on the labels affixed to the contain ers of the product were false and
ai;ing as the product had a phenol coefficent of less than 5 and, when used
as directed, the product would not disinfect floors, sinks, refrigerators; toilet
a thtubs i bowls, inals, floors, and baseboards in toilet rooms; areas
of infection in schools, institutions, and public buildings; garbage cans, refuse
paiTs, cellars, outdoor closets, chicken coops, yards, pens, and stables; floors,
Sgts WOWbtbs, toilets, pantries, and passageways in public conveyances;
a~nd aU artleq places, and surfaces implied by the term "etc."
i.twas qlge that the product was adulterated within the meaning of the
act in that ofls other than pine oil had egin substituted wholly, or in part, for

as .Iged thatthe product was f"ulterated within the meaning
Sal in thatt its strength or puriy below tie professed standard or
quality as expressed on Its labeling since lA 1g0Ug bore the statement "o -
cet: 5 F,. eA." whereas the product 4oL ibo comc1ient of less than 5.
Bdusries, c of Arabi, La., claimed ownership of the product and
reqete its xelI asM uni er Abond for the ep f bringing it into colTpliaine
'with te ac, an4 consented to the entry \ ordeonatlion decree. On October
17A1 a1 n darwa of onnarmnat-nn n~, Pntrrad and it wx nm- rda l- th t tha


I;li






100


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


Afl


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R.N.J.


the product 41d not bear an Ingredient statement nor a warning or caution
statement as required by the act. The product was also found to be misbranded
within the meaning of the act.
The United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, acting upon a


report by the Secretary of Agricult
a libel praying seizure for condemn
and 144 1-ounce bottles, sre or
CETRATED," at Summit, N. J.,
poison which had been transported


ure, filed in the United States District Court
nation and confiscation of 72 8-ounce bottles
less, of "SOLUTION DETERGICIDE CON-
alleging That the product was an economic
interstate, on or about July 21, 1952, by the


United States Cathtter & Instrument Coiyation, from Glens Falls, N. Y., 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.
The product was alleged to be misbrande in that the labels affixed to the
containers of the product did not bear ia dent statement giving the name
and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total per-
centage of inert ingredients, in the produq r an ingredient statement giving the
names of each of the active and each of nert ingredients in the descending
order of the percentage of each present eh classification, together with the
total percentage of the inert ingredients, i oduct.
It was alleged that the product was futher misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labels did not bear a warning or caution statement which
was necessary and, if complied with, ada t to prevent injury to living man
and other vertebrate animals. 1
It was alleged that the product was ftr misbranded in that the labeling
was false and misleading as it implied or presented that the product, when
used as directed, would sterilize and dia nect catheters and diagnostic and
surgical instruments and would be a versatle germicide for office and hospital
use, whereas the product, when used as d would not sterilize or disinfect
catheters and diagnostic and surgical instruments and it would not be a versatile
germicide for office or hospital use.
On November 7, 1952, no claimant having feared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was o that the product be destroyed.
158. Misbranding of "CO-OP SODIUM FUQORLDE." U. S. v. 644 1-pound con-
tainers, more or less, of "CO-OP SOM FLUORIDE." Consent decree
of condemnation and release under bod. (I. F. & R. No. 158. I. D. Nos.
22(075 and 24007.)
Examinations of two samples of the product, "CO-OP SODIUM FLUORIDE,"
showed net weight shortages of 10 percent an 14 percent, respectively, below the
net weight claimed on the labeling of thepro .
On July 26, 1951, the United States n~ for the Southern District of
Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary o Agriculture, filed in the Dis-
trict Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 644
1-pound containers, more or less, of "'CO-OP SODIUM FLUORIDE," at Indian-
apolis, Ind., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been
transported interstate, on or about March 1, 1951, and April 20, 1951, by the
Hessler Laboratories, Inc., from Orient, Ohio, in violation of the Federal Insecti-
cide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "CO-OP
SODIUM FLUORIDE net contents 1 Ib.," borne on the labels affixed to the con-
tainers of the product, was false or misleading and served to deceive and mislead
purchasers, since the statement represented that the net weight of the containers
was not lessn than 1 Mound. whereas the npt wpipht- of thp rnntninprs was less






134-169]


O-ROACH."


(I. F. & R. No.159.


The products, "RI
the Federal Insectic


NOTICES


Default decree of


D-O-RA
ide, Fu


products showed that the hl
bear statements of net we
ingredient statements, and
tain directions for use as rei
On August 9, 1951, the
Hampshire, acting upon a
District Court a libel pray


1-pound co
more or les
were econo
cember 15,
pany, from


ntainers, more o
ss, of "RID-O-R(
mic poisons whhi
1950, by H. L.
Portland, Maine


OF JUDGMENT

f condemnation, forfeiture,


. D. Nos. 24107 and 24108.)
LT" and "RID-O-ROACH," were
ingicide, and Rodenticide Act.
ibels affixed to the containers of
eight or measure of contents o3
the labeling accompanying the
quired by the act;
United. States Attorney for t
report by the Secretary of Agi
ing seizure for con emnation a
*r less, of "RID-O-RAT" and 1
)ACH," at Ber H., allegi
ch had been transported interest
-linton, doing b as Acme
, in violation of the act.


101

and destruction.


not registered under
Examinations of the
the products did not
f the containers, nor
products did not con-

the District of New
culture, filed in the
nd confiscation of 11
1 1-pound containers
ng that the products
:ate, on or about De-
Exterminating Cornm-


It was alleged that the products wer
- Agriculture as required by section 4 of tl
It was alleged that the products fail
labels affixed to the containers of the pi
weight or measure of the contents of the
It was alleged that the productswe
the act in that the labels affixed to the
ingredient statements giving the name a
gredients, together with the total perc(


products, or ingredient statements
each of the inert ingredients in the


assification,
products.
at the produ
products did
ied with, ad,
951, no clair
entered, and


present in each cl
ingredients, in the
It was alleged tt
accompanying the
sary and, if comply
On October 22, 1
and forfeiture was


givid
des


e I registered
he
ed comply w:
od 14d not b
c .


with


the Secretary


ith the act in that the
)ear a statement of net


re branded within the meaning
containers of the products did not b
Lnd percentage of each of the active
entagh Of the inert ingredients, in
ig tb fames of each of the active
enda order of the percentage of e


of
ear
in-
the
and
ach


together with the total percentage of the inert

lcts were further misbranded in that the labeling
not contain directions for use which were neces-
equate for the protection of the public.
nmant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
it was ordered that the products be destroyed.


160. Lack of registration of "RID-O-RAT" and "RID-O-ROACH" and lack of
registration and misbranding of "KILLS MOTHS MOSQUITOES FLIES
BEDBUGS ANTS and Other Insects.?' S. v. 11 1-pound containers,
more orless, of "RID-O-RAT," 11 1-pound containers of "RID-O-ROACH,"
and 5 1-gallon containers, more or less, of "KILLS MOTHS MOSQUITOES
FLIES BEDBUGS ANTS and Other Insects." Default decree of condem-
nation, forfeiture, and destruction., (I. F. & R. No. 160. I. D. Nos. 24109,
24110, 24111.)


The products, "RID-O-RAT,
QUITOES FLIES BEDBUGS
under the Federal Insecticide,


tion of
hind Ot
product
On A
shire, a
Court a
contain


the product,
her Insects "
Sdid not bear
ugust 9, 1951,
acting upon a
libel prayin
ers, more or i


"F
s
a
t
re
rr
les


1" "RID-O-ROaCH," and "KILLS MOTHS MOS-
ANTS andt their Insects," were not registered
Fungicide, bifodenticide Act, and an examina-


ILLS MOTHS MOSQUITOES FLIES BEDBUGS ANTS
bowed that the la s affixed to the containers of the
n ingredient stateme as required by the act.
he United States At for the Distriet of New Hamp-
port by thlie Secreta ot Agriulture, filed in the District
seizure for condemttan *nd confiscation of 11 1-pound
s, of "RID-O-.RAT,l -pound containers, more or less.,


~i:":E:






102


INS))CT C1B


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I.T .R.N.J.


ingredients, together ith the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in
product, or an ingredient statement giving the names of each of the active
each f the inert ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of i
present in each classification, together the total percentage of the i
ingredients, in the product.
On October 22, 195I1, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemn
and forfeiture was entered, and the M States Marshal was ordered
destroy the products.


the
and


-lon
1


161. Lack of required information on lbels and misbranding of ?IqZ I
DISINFECTANT" labeled as "Clag Compound" 8. v. 1 55-gallon
container, 1 80-gallon container, aid 2 5-gallon containers, more or
of "PINE OIL DISINFECTANT" beled as "Cleaning Compound." (1. ,
& No.161. I.D. No. 21676.)
An examination of the product, "PI OIL DISINFECTANT" labeled s
"Cleaning Compound," showed that the abels affixed to the containers of the
product did not bear a statement of the aet weight or measure of the content of
the containers, nor an ingredient statement, nor adequate directions for se, aS
required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On August 31, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Northern Distriet of
GOorgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Unite
States District Court a libel praying sei ure for condemnation and confiscation
of 1 55-gallon container, 1. 30-gallon container, and 12 5-gallon containers, more
or less, of "PINE OIL DISINFECTANT" labeled as "Cleaning CompoaV" at
Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had be
transported interstate, on or about June 11, 1951, by Bayou Industries, Inc., from
New Orleans, La., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the labels affixed to the containers of the product di n,
bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the contates
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels caffed to
the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the
name and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with thettal
percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement
giving the names of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients th
descending order of the percentage of each present in each classification, together
with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that the labeling
accompanying the product did not contain directions for use which were necessary
and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
On October 2, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of con-
demnation and forfeiture was entered, an it was ordered that the product be
destroyed.
162. Lack of registration and required intfrmation on label and misbranding of
"Insect-O-Lite Vaporizer with Insectane." U. S. v. 44 cartons, moe or
less, of "Insect-O-Lite Vaporizer with Insectane." Default decree of con-
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction (I. F. & R. No. 206. I. D.
25967.)


The product, "Inseet-O-Lite Vaporizer with Insectane," was not registered
der the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination
the product showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the product
not bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the
tainers nor an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On August 5. 1952, the United States Attorney for the Southern Distric


un-
n of
did
con-


t of


"":"i~~~





134-169]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


103


It was alleged t
the outside contain
ent statement givi
together with the
an ingredient stat
inert ingredients i
each classification,
the product.
On November 5,
and forfeiture wa
destroy the produce


hat the product was In that the label affixed to
er of the retail package of t*Iproduct did not bear an ingredi-
ng the name and percentage of each of the active ingredients,
total percentage of the ingredients, in the product, or
ement giving the names ech of the active and each of the
n the descending order ~he percentage of each present in
together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in
1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
LS entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
t.


163. Lack of registration and required information on label and misbranding of
."CREOSAN (DISINFECTANT)." Ui.S. v. 1 drum containing 55-gallons,
more or less, of "CREOSAN (DISINFECTANT)." Default decree of con-
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 211. I. D. No.

product, "CREOSAN (DISINFECTANT)," was not registered under the
eal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the
utsahowed that the label affixed to the container of the product did not bear
* statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the container, nor
Sgredient statement as required by the act.
On October 2, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Alabama,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
setrat Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
ru containing 55-gallons, more or less, of "CREOSAN (DISINFECTANT),"


at Geneva, Ala., alleging
lnnsported intersta
a from Marianna,
was alleged that th
ritRe as required by
It was alleged that the
affixed to the container of
or measure of the contents
It was aUled tat the
altiiBl'''ljf~ij.Ct rie dl ljf k LJii-~i *XK6


that the product was an
te, on or about April 80,
Fla., in violation of the act.
e product was not regist
section 4 of the act.
product failed to comply w
the product did not bear a
of the container.
product was misbranded


economic poison which had
1952, by Harrison Chemical


with


the Secretary


vith the act in that the label
.statement of the net weight
min that the labels affixed to


t eb container of the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the
name and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total
ppentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement
giving thle names of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the
ndig order of the percentage of each present in each classification, together
with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
Or November 3, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
Ike produet.

164. Misbranding of "COLORADO .44 BRAND 25% DDT EMULSION." U. S.v.
1 drum containing 20 gallons, more or less, of "COLORADO .44 BRAND
25% DDT EMULSION." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
.... destruction. (L F. & R. No. 164. I. D. No. 20866.)


An
EMU
with
weed
On


exammin
LSION,"
commonly
s, to which
October


action of the product, "COLORADO
showed that this product, when used as
y recognized practice, would be injurious
hi it was applied.
18. 1 l951. the TUnited States Attornev fo


.44 BRAND 25% DDT
directed or in accordance
to vegetation, other than


r the District of Kranans.






104


INSERTICWIJ


IUNGICIDE,


RODENTICIDE


ACT


II. P. R. N. J.


Oi
and
165.


i February 4, 1958; no claimant having appeared, a decrn
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the pr
Lack of registration and misbranding of "Stantox 2,4-D
75-pound sacks, more or less, of "Stantox 2,4-D Dust."
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R.
23511.)


ee of condemnation
oduct be destroyed.
Dust." U. S. v.165
Default decree of
No. 165. I. D. No.


The product, "Stantox 2,4-D Dust," not registered
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentici d. An examinati
showed that the labels afixd to the con miners of the pro
a warning or caution statement whica necessary and,
adequate to prevent injury to living ma and other vertebra
On October 22, 1951, the United S tourney for the
Dakota, acting upon a report by the Seciie yof Agriculture,


States District Court a libel praying


of 165 75-pound sacks
N. Dak., alleging that
transported interstate,
Agricultural Chemicals
speetively, in violation


under


for condemnation


More or less, t 'Stantox 2,4-D Dust,"
the product wr an economic poison whii
on or about Jun 194, and June 8, 1949,
, Inc., from Taulae, Calif., and Portlan
of the Federal Iseticide, Fungicide, and


Act.
It was alleged that the product -wa nt registered
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.


The product was alleged to be
containers of the product did not
was necessary and; if complied w
and other vertebrate animals.
On June 17, 1952, no claimant
and forfeiture was entered, and
destroy the product.


with


the Federal


of the product
ct did not bear
complied with,
animals.
district of North
ed in the United
and confiscation


at Larimore,
ch bad been
by Standard
d, Oreg., re-
Rodenticide


the Secretary


misbranded in that the labels affixed to the
contain a warning or caution statement which
ith, adequate to prevent injury to living man


having appeared, a
the United States


(lecree
Marsha


of condemnation
was ordered to


Misbranding
from those
Ratner and
and plea ol
corporation
24082.)


of "Fli-Pel" and claims made for product di
Made in connection wh its registration
SUnited Enterprises, Juc. Plea of guilty 1
nolo contender by the individual Fines
and $25 against the individual. (I. P. & R.


offered in substance
. U. S. v. Lee L.
by the corporation
of $75 against the
No. 173. I. D. No.


- The product, "Fli-Pel," was in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act in that the claims thde for the product differed from
those made in connection with its regiatilan, and the product was misbranded
in that the claims made for it were false b misleading.
On May 22, 1952, the United States Distrtt Attorney for the Northern Dis-
trict of Illinois, acting upon a report by the teretary of Agriculture, filed
in the United States District Court an inf nation against Lee L. Ratner and
United Enterprises, Inc., alleging the interstate shipment, on or about July
17, 1951, from Chicago, Ill., to Indianapli ldt., of an economic poison, known
as "Fli-Pel," in violation of the act.
In count 1 it was alleged that the elams made for the product differed
in substance from those made in connectis with its registration.
In count 2 it was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:


"KEEP YOUR HOM -SOP---BARN
FREE OF ILIES


AND




Si: l Nli


134-1691


6
FLI-PEL is not
quitoes, and othei
around all farm
not a poison nor d
PREVENT DISEASE,
POLIO:


N(


tists have known for yea
such as typhoid fever
e that the common fly
S. PROTECT YOUR F
ntrolling flies: MOSQU
diseases as malaria and


FAMILY AGAIN
FLI-PEL is Gua
Mosquitoes-and
Back:


were false or mislea


that the product: (1) Was
around all farm and domestic
would keep homes, shops, st
when used as directed, woulc
season long; (4) when used
mosquitoes and keep it that


of insects and
flying insects;


preve
second
produ
farm
keep
used


nt
ds,
ct
an


extremely effl
(6) would pr


disease, filth, ar
flies and mosqi
: (1) Was a pois
d domestic animE


homes, shops, store
as directed, would


season long; (4) when
and mosquitoes and keep
types of insects or extret
"other flying insects";
mosquitoes or prevent dis
within a few seconds, fli
On December 17, 1952,
and a plea of guilty was
imposed a fine of $25 aga


rs that flies carry dangerous dis-
ad dysentery-NOW scientists
trainsmits the dreaded POLIO
FAMILY. HELP FIGHT POLIO
ITOES carry such dreaded and
other fevers. PROTECT YOUR


ST FLIES and MOSQUITO
ranteed to Rid Your Prop
Keep It That Way All Seaso
sn scsaent
ding since suer statements


not a poison and could be reh
* animals and Jumans; (2) whe
ores, restaurants; hotels, and
I keep one's h, Shop, and ba
as directed, wi ld rid one's pr
way all ssea (5) would be
ective against certain specified
otect one's fa against flies


MS with FLI-PEL.
erty of Flies and
n---or Your Money


implied or represented


itively safe to use
n used as directed,
arns fly-free; (3)
trn free of flies all
operty of flies and
good for all types
insects and other
and mosquitoes or


3d discomfort; a$ (7) would destroy, within a few
uitoes which land on sprayed surfaces, whereas the
on and would not be relatively safe to use around all
als and humans; (2) wheu used as directed, would not
es, restaurants, h s, and barns fly-free; (3) when
not keep one's he, shop, and barn free of flies all
used as directed, tod not rid one's property of flies
Sit that way all season; (5) would not be good for all
mely effective agajtst all insects implied by the phrase
(6) would not pQteet ione's family against flies and
ease, filth, and diseomfort; and (7) would not destroy,
es and mosquitoes whbh land on sprayed surfaces.
a plea of nolo confendere was made by Lee L. Ratner,
made by United Enterprises, Inc., whereupon the court
inst the individual and $75 against the corporation.


167. Lack of registration and
INFECTANT F. D. A.
Turner, doing business


Fine $25. (I.F.
The product, "NO-O
6," was not registered
Act. Examinations o
1.63 percent and 0.86
benzyl ammonium ch
0.8 instead of a phenol


& R. No
DOR DI
under tl
f two s


misbrandin


adulteration of "NO-ODOR DIS-


PHENOL Ci FICIENT 6B. U.
as Univerp Chemical Company.
180. I. D. No, 22479.)
SINFECTANt F. D. A. PHENOL
he Federal InTsecticide, Fungicide,
samples of the product showed th


percent, respectively, of alky
loride, and that the product
coefficient of 6 as claimed.


1 (CsH1 to
had a phen


S. v. George H.
Plea of guilty.


COEFFICIENT
and Rodenticide
at it contained
JH,7w) dimethyl
ol coefficient of


On October 14, 1952, the United State s attorney for the District of Massa-
chulatts. nting unnan n rpnnrt hv the Secretarv nf A-rienitura_ filed in the


)TICES OP JUDGMENT

only extremely effective against flies, mos-
* flying insects but it is relatively safe to use
and domestic animals and humans, as it is
oes it contain any DDT.
FILTH and DISCOMFORT: HELP FIGHT


Scien
eases
believe
VIRU
by co
fatal


which


~~~~"~~~"


105


i






106


DISBCTICDR,


FUNGICIDE,


Ai RODENTICIDE


ACT


(I. F. R. N. J.


"PHEW'OL COEFFICIENT 6

Active Ingred 8.0%
Alkyldimethylbenzy] Am moniu m
Chle
Inert Ingredients: 97.0%
Water
*I*
-* k S :- -*i: :.*


wnicn impneu tmat te product contain
dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride and
ents and that the product had a phenol
the product contained Iess than 3 perne
benzyl ammonium chloride and more tlI
it hnd a nhenol onffirpint f ae1s thnn &


a wb


percent of alkyl (UHit to Cndaa)
more than 97 percent inert ingredi-
pient of not less than 6, whereas
balkyl (fH1 to C4.) dimethyl
percent of inert ingredients, arind


-, I, !' ---
2. That the product was further misabranded within the meaning of tl
act in that its accompanying labeling did not contain directions f
use which were necessary and, "f complied with, adequate for tl
protection of the public. It was alleged further that the product w
misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its labeling did n
bear a warning or caution statement which was necessary and,
complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man and oth
vertebrate animals.


- t Sw fl -* -r -


In count 3 it was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning
of the act in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or
quality as expressed on its labeling since its labeling bore the statements:
"PHENOL COEFFICIENT 6
*r,.
Active Ingrediexts: 3.0%
Alkyldimethylbenzyl Ammonium
Chlorides
Inert Ingredients: 97.0%
Water


*4


whereas the phenol coefficient of the product was less than 6 and the
contained less than 3 percent of alkyl (C0H1 to C0,iRa,) dimethyl
ammonium chloride and more than 97 percent of inert ingredients.
On December 1, 1952, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, and th
imposed a total fine of $25.


product
benzyl

ie court


168. Lack of registration of "Lin-Air." U, S. v. 283 more or less, Lindane Vaporiz-
ing Units called "Lin-Air." Default ate of condemnation, forfeiture,
and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 216. I. D. No. 26262.)
The product, "Lin-Air," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rpdenticide Act.
On November 21, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for coindemnation and confiscation of 23,
more or less, Lindane Vaporizing Units called "Lin-Air," at Yuma, Ariz., alleg-
ing that the product was an economic poison which had been delivered for
interstate transportation, on or about October 11, 1952, by Lin-Air of California,
from Gordon Wells, Calif., in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,


- StS I






1 34-16 9]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


107


Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond. (I. F. & R. No.
207. LID. No. 25768.)
The product, "BROWN'S SUPERCEDA KNNEL BEDDING," was not
registered under the Federal Insecticide, uzlcide, and Rodenticide Act. An
examination of the product showed that the els a ed to the containers of
the product did not bear an ingredient statement nor directions for use which
were necessary and, it complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
On September 5, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
f Georgia, acting upon a report Jy the See"try of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying diMre for condemnation and con-
tseatfn of 1,199 5-pound bags and 1,000 25-pound bags, more or less of
"BROWN'S SUPERCEDAR KENNEL BIDDING," at Atlanta, Ga., alleging
that the product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate,
n or about July 22, 1952, by George C. Brown & Company, Inc., from Greensboro,
. C. in violation of the act.


It as alleged tha
Agrerifture as require
It was alleged that
to the 25-pound bags
and percentage of ea<
eentage of the inert
giving the names of
the descending order
together with the tota
It was alleged that
of the act in that the


Sthe product was not registered with the Secretary of
d by section 4 of the act.
the product was misbhranded in that the labels affixed
did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name
ah of the active ingredients, together with the total per-
ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement
each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in
of the percentage of each present in each classification,
l percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
the product was further misbranded within the meaning
labeling accompanying the product did not contain direc-


tions for use which were necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the
protection of the public.
George C. Brown & Company, Inc., of Greensboro, N. 0., claimed ownership
of the product, requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing
the product into compliance with the act, and consented to the entry of a
condemnation decree. On October 14, 1952, a decree of condemnation was
entered, and it was ordered that the product be released to the claimant under
bond.


NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 134-169


N. J. No.


Arab-U-Do-It Concentrate Termite
Control:
Federal Chemical Co., Inc ..
Better Moth Rings:
Better Brushes, Inc .........--
Brown's Supercedar Kennel Bed-
ding:
George C. Brown & Co., Inc--
By-U Pine Oil Disinfectant Coeffi-
dent: 5 F. D. A.:
Bayou Industries, Inc
N. ii- .... F. Ra.... a ...--
tnm Products..... -.--------.
*ar-a^: Prdut Co., Inc__
Cedar-Lux Products Co., Inc_
&daW~R^ -:Lnx-:idb


169

156


138


N. J. No.


Co-op Sodium Fluoride:
Hessler Laboratories, Ine--c__
Creosan (Disinfectant):
Harrison Chemical Co. ----
Extermo-0-Lite:
Candle-Lite Chemical Co ..
Extermo-O-Lite:
Candle-Lite Chemical Co .-.-.
Fazt Pine Oil Disinfectant Coef. 5:
Continental Soap Corporation-
Fli-Pel:
[Lee 1U. R~atner .........-
United Enterprises, Ine .c-
Fortified Disinfectant Pine Oil


158

163

141


166
166


Coet. 3 F. D. A.:
Uncle Sam Chemical Co., Inca 151
y~l_ ^ .~ f .------r __ nS .V ^ f 4f af .t A it- fl__.-


INDEX TO


I~aL;:


139






108


mBUOTXCID;


WIUQICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


N. J. No.
Glamorene the ProfessinalCarpet
Cleaner:
The Blade Co., Te .4.4.__ 137
Gulco Cleaner Polishe With Magic
Parame-ium:
Guleo Chemical O lotI -. 136
Harco G. S, A. DC ntOet 5
FDA Method; and SO GS. .
A DIinfetantOe C"5 FDA
Method:.
Harley Soap Co -- 154
Insect-O-Lite Vaporiser with In-
sectane
Inseet-O-Lte o.,Co Inc__Lt__ 162
Lin-Air:
.xG~ m i..*

Lin-Air of Calfornia---._... 168'
Mystic Fresh-up for Perfect Carpet
Oece:ne:

Care:
Mystic Foam Corporation-- 145
No-Odor Disinfectant F. D. A.
Phenol Coeffiietent 6:
Universal Chemical Co----- 135
No-Odor Disinfetant F. D. A.
Phenol Coefficient 6:
George H. Turner._.. ._... 167
Universal Chemical Co... .-.- 167
Pine Oil Disinfectant labeled as
Cleaning Compound:
Bayou Industries, Inc_.._.__ 161


N. J. No.


Py. Extract:
Baird & McGuire, Inc---- ....
Pyneen Disinfectant Coefficient 5:
The Chemical Services Co..
Pynol 18-55-49:
Pynol Co ...-...-------------
Rid-O-Rat; and Rid-O-Roach:
fli. L. Hinton- ..----.......
S Mme Exterminating Co .-..
Rid-O-Rat; Rid-O-Roach; and
Kills Moths Mosquiitoes Flies
Bedbugs Ants and Other Insects:
H. L. Hinton.. ..... ---.-
Acme Exterminating Co .---
Sabadilla Seed Powdered; Pow-
dered Sabadilla Seed and Sulphur


Wfor
^t&Pwdered
Sulphur-6
Sabadilla
Mixed for
(Powdered


Lice
Sabad
7%) ;
Seed
Lice
Sabad


on Livestock
ilia Seed-33%
and Powdered
and Sulphur
on Livestock
ilia Seed-50%


Sulphur-50%) :
Northern Drug Co- ..---.
Solution Detergicide Concentrated:
United States Catheter & In-
strument Corporation -..-
Stantox 2,4-D Dust:
Standard Agricultural Chemi-
cals, Inc ..--- -----...-.




























































































































C


F:ii::








31