Notices of judgment under the insecticide act

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Notices of judgment under the insecticide act
Physical Description:
v. : ; 23 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Insecticide and Fungicide Board
United States -- Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration
United States -- Food and Drug Administration
United States -- Agricultural Marketing Service
United States -- Agricultural Marketing Administration
United States -- War Food Administration. -- Office of Distribution
United States -- Office of Marketing and Services
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Production and Marketing Administration
Publisher:
U.S. G.P.O.
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Publication Date:
Frequency:
irregular
completely irregular

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Insecticides -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
serial   ( sobekcm )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )

Notes

Dates or Sequential Designation:
Began with no. 73.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
-2041/2066 (Jan. 1951).
Numbering Peculiarities:
Some nos. issued together.
Issuing Body:
Issued by: no. 73-1100, U.S. Insecticide and Fungicide Board; no. 1101/1125-1166/1175, Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration; 1176/1190-1731/1745, Food and Drug Administration; 1746/1762-1790/1800, Agricultural Marketing Service; 1801/1811-1812/1825, Agricultural Marketing Administration; 1826/1840-1885, Food Distribution Administration; 1886/1895-1896/1910, War Food Administration, Office of Distribution; 1911/1925, War Food Administration, Office of Marketing Services; 1926/1949-2041/2066, Production and Marketing Administration.
General Note:
Description based on: 1101/1125 (Dec. 1928); 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 - 004700296
oclc - 13957905
lccn - sn 86034178
Classification:
ddc - 632.951 U61
System ID:
AA00008549:00007

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text







I ,*.*iI


'I,'.
II


Lq


ITt


a C;Efr<
...s .. ,
** *: : *. '. *. : *. : *

B** : ."


7
1


S.


TI


llu ... Blv 3 :
S": -r .i
r^ 4 "ii ';
, -. *" : i i

S INSECTICIDE


I '.


ACi!


I H! I
*i 1-4 u* sss s- j r
ji: uaint to section 4" of the insecticide act]
": r;. 1Sh3O -ZfU. ..
"11"j '" ': ,


*!J~ ~~k4'


'I'


** .*.I
- ::.!


S* i : -
.,4iciu re,r Wailpgton,. D. .C.., ,June 24,


bat'


1Ar'M w 1' 4kdnsm-sddh
^IJil^ JSoro,-a U.A, v. 1i fomen Smafl-Siud, aclsse.,
dado, & .Wuasen, deitie of cotadeMMttrps an. for-
|. 0 et-...eCl aSdfr bond., (I. & F. No. 1554. 8. No. 227.)
.....'the .tiitied States attorney for the District of Colorado,
L r ,theytbeeterty of Agile'euttire, filed 'in the District Covrt
tates for thie-ditrtict aforesaid"A' libel praying seizure and
IdC1R deen nkall-iiied akagdk and 13 'arge-si.ed 'packages of
|fldtshAg 1tbhe origiitl uibbrokenl p&ekajs at Denver, Colcd., con-
*l$Jf4as Qruz. ,TemioalCo., Minneapolis, Minn., alleging
t cieh ad been shipped from Minneapolis, Minn., on or about May 6,
li'ed the' ,ttt
t e.bp 1 f.t ther'Stfte 'of Mipnesota intO the' tite
..4 ',i gP 4a1F,4e Mt4 twthe- ;i ning of
P u A^ f lS fl f *j1 **n i it *! IC IIttI ./s n
alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the fol-
tpent,.appeardag on the label of the box obtainingg the article and
. n| einLse lare (label and circular) "'Non-poisonous," (label?
Sinambubrusbhes,; etc. use %%. Immerse for 10 minutes *
i.g combs, brushes, etec, empty contents of one Capsule in one quart
, iiem.10 minutes. Fmor metal instruments 'Immerse for 5 minutes.
t ;A-. .' 9.. Sttilisinge Instruments,.fle. Make a solu-
lOfbol/,ob. digsolviz.ageontents of one ,easule in one quart of water.


pl aTe sues, wipe arefully.i and place in a dry
I^Nia ~I Kille-gerls-- <1 ** ?It? is most power
|t|bi sfmfan.y timen the. germicidal power o1 phenol
.J. &YiS: .leint. iittually' 'flon-poieonous; *
t, A ...z sterilAing combs, brushes, and
t. roughly wita hot watet ..and. soap, or hold


sterilizer," (cir-
ul antiseptic and
(carbolic acid)',
* Sterilizing
various utensils,
them under the


P l..fl 'Bke. s empty cdnttentS ot one capsule in one quart of p ..otb, b.thu etc., for ten or fifteen minutes. Wipe dry and
teUt e.ededd.Drain .boards and some utensils that can-
t1beI.mnr ,iqa, should. first be washeed with hot water and soap
..} 1 wt.(io r k solution; .*'..9* .*t For Dry Steriliuer Empty
I Il esalbS Wl.ih ibat..usot tameted.n hsa the solution eTaporeates there will
Ui __.teoi. r ond the edgedtgaftltie dish.. This should be pushed
tp.jt.; olItiotr A ismail amoeot wbtwateu added.: Change solution
; -,.l.P terillisang-.Hads.-BWr :Sterilising hands pre-
t -- rmUfmt Stmut at thnranuab -it man andTl 'hat water Thbn


*


bi

















recea stceruize or aisinIec
hands. ,
Misbranding was allege
partially of inert ingredie
sulphon-chloramide, which
mitigate insects or fungi,
every inert substance wer
in lieu thereof, 'were the


;. an


'WOUI(


not Wnen usec


as air1
1 .-.


.. ...
d for the further reason that the Artice cpu
nts, namely, substances other than so.dim :t 4
i inert ingredifets do not prevent, desfrog rq.E
and, the- namentd- percentage amountt ota'id
e not stated plainly an'd correctly on the litel
name and percentage' amount of the stbit'


ingredients having jnsecticidal or fungicidal property .
o0 the itnert,& bsatsan sehtM ptiainly and:correctly-,on
On December 4, 1930, the Bueger Bros. Supply Co:,
having admitted the allegations of the libel and having
of a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture
ordered by 1the court that the product be released. to
payment of costs and, the execution of a bond in the
in part that it be relabeled under the supervision of t


AnrUus


1202. Misbraading of Margo's bottled
tive, and deodoriser. U. S. v.
'Preventative, Imaeet Preventat
of condemnation, forfeiture,
B. No. 219.)


. ..


... H ;
..' '


the- jlabe.,r .na.. w.,
JDenver, Cooetj 4-
g consented'to,tI*
was entered, &.
the said. elaIdpW't
sum otf $2aQ, co "O ti.
is dePrtawtcnt.. ,


M. HYDE, Se oretarw.".... ...v..
moth preventatiye, iAhect hila="
00 Caker of MargoPpa.S 34t.
ive, and Deodorlima. ."1
and destruction. (". -& :,Io


, IExamination of the product herein described having showni'thtt tue b..Ibs:
represented the article to'possess certain insecticidal and deodorimng .Io2gOtd.
which it did not, the Secretary of Agriculture reported the matterto tlte Julitt
States attorney for the District of New Jersey. ... -: :; t1:.
On or about August 21, 1930, the United States attorney filed in.athe. i.. l
Court of the United States for the district aforesaid a libel praying.u.,Sre afl
condemnation of 300 bottle-shaped cakes of Margo's bottled knoth peevntaetl%
insect preventative, 'and deodorizer. It was alleged in thetibel that thee artitii
had been shipped on August 1, 1980, by the Margo Sales o., from P .dla.delph,
Pa., to Atlantic City, N. J., and that having been so transported .it rnmdt @i Wa}
the original unbroken packages at Atlantic City, N. J., and that it was .a :'i
branded insecticide withina.the meaning of the insecticide act of 1910.; .: :.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the libel for the rmsobnt/at ..
statements, to wit, "Margo's Bottled Moth PreventatiV e Insect P tevlf.
tive Its Bottled strength *, Drivesawdy. moths,KIns.ets_ .1.
all vermin Bottled for home, office,store, factorwy,.i'eta.," :and1 .16f
bottled strength combats undesirable odors," borne on the label affixed to eaHl.
of the cakes of the article, were false and. misleading; ,and by reason Of the Mli
statements the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and itslead tte!


purchaser, in t
trol for moths, &
office, store, facd
said article wo


iat
ill i
tory
uld


they represented that the article would
nsects, and all vermin, would prevent all
r, etc., and would combat all undesirable
not be an effective control for 'moths.


be ma Weftetdtve 'cpu
,insects AM. theih
,odors; Whereas "h"
all iseet 'a i





H:H:. r. I
~,i. *. H *.
K:
H':


110!


,tPP9INT


s and, that it was indorsed.by
ap .wbch .cotroI ud was not


S- ..- T .
ld-i tm e origina
ed fip ,ioltion of
t th.e aqrtcle was
Over 78 Inactiv
t eaich pf the bot
ctive ingredient ,,
. insect, min the
ot .mnorW'than 25 p
of.the article fel
sold, in that it c
than 25 per cent
otherr reason that
1~ I


1inr was alleged for the reason t
o I78.% active Inigredients ..(
wqrg false Ind misleading; and b,
Sla.beled and branded so as to d
f-ticlc e6ntained less than 75 per c
.r cent of inactive ingredients.
son that the following statements,


.@"l~,.. with water, on soil, sod and..turf t
'l"n insects which use the soil, sod an
'.s ti 'de when employed on small l
't1] n 'pdty. areas, should be diluted wit
$. s..oAd, tur, or ofrals with a spri
titns, useand leeds for this merchandise c
taates ppartw.ent .of Agriculture for their
St..he .6Ittle abel, were false and mislead
zfts tht. article was labeled and branded
. #..nne ..iii.that they represented that the
. ...:'rect ze control of be insects usually
tft was recommended, Sad indorsed by
tiozed in Department of Agriculture Circu
dt.c"ed,,I.t, was an effective control of the
Where ;the iaric'e when used as directed


a
d
a
h
n


*.
r fot pe4.1,ismt4ct of. Vermont.
ure 41ed in the District Court
libel, saying: seizure and con-
, VYt, allegng. that the article
by the Union Control Corpora-
ernmont, and that having been
l unbroken packages and that
the insecticide act of 1910.
adulterated in that ,the state-
e Ingredients (water) 22% to
ties containing the said article,
namely, substances that pre-
proportion of not less than 75


er cent of inactive ingred
I below the professed sta
contained less than 75 pe
of inactive, ingredients.
water had been substitu


hat the
water) .
y reason
receive
!ent of
Misbra
"An in


control
I turf as
wn plot
200 gal
kling ci


Lents;
ndard
r cent
Adul-
ted in


statements, "Active Ingre-
22% to 25.," borne on the
i of the said statements the
and mislead the purchaser,
active ingredients and more
nding was alleged for the
secticide to be applied after
the larvae, pupae, and egg
s a breeding place. *
s or ordinary surroundings
lIons of water and sprinkled


In.


* *


an be secured by writ
Department Circular
ng; and by reason of
d so as to deceive an
article when used as
y controlled with such
this department; tha
lar No. 363 and that
insects mentioned in
would not be an effec


ly controlled with such applications; it was n
ths department; it was not mentioned in circu
directed it would not be an effective control
said. circular.
0, all'.parties in interest having failed to answe
and the court having found that. the product
he libel, judgment of condemnation was ente
art that the product bq destroyed by the United


ot


Recommenda-
ing the United
No. 363, borne
the said state-
d mislead the
directed wvonuld


1ap'
t it
whe
said
tive
rec


locationss ;
was men-
n used as
circular.;
control of
)mmended


lar No. 363 and
of the insects

.r or file a claim
was misbranded
red and it was
States marshal.


*. .... ... ..: ARTHUB M. HYD, Uecretary of Agrictutre.
* .r" ..J ,J
i. .. bAEIni of tia-Way lice and mnite spools for poultry. UI. S. v. T27
a.... ..:r :. 'W... .-la n l a n n. A... a.4 a


.~.----


Ind'igl. it was
redients and more
alleged for the fur
trtcle I


F ~
iieMjj


I






~CTI


spools foir ioaltry.' It was' hll
by theM-Oniex Labb*htbrWes, '
from thI State of Iowa into
transported it remained in the
and that it *&s a' misbrand4d
the inisecticide eAct df 1910.
Misbranding of the article
statements, to wit, "Sta-Way']
and Mites off of Poultry. The
Fumes Drive off the Lice ahd'
Them Under the RooSts," borE
training the 'said article, were :
statements the article was label
purchaser into the belief that it
mites, and would disinfect the
the said article when used as
poultry lice and mites, and woti
On March 3, 1931, no claimai
condemnation was entered dnd
destroyed by the United States


!U a9L/.


ged in tl ihbetelthatfhe aft
edMr Rapids, Iowa, on. or .b6
the State of Kansas, sad 't
Signal .unbroken ledkages
f#eeticide and f1gicide wil


a


Alleged in the libel for the "
and %Iite Sbools for Poultrf .Zt
is sit on thb Roosts ovtr the eo


* H
~.
fl* H....
~~u111
'I: ..
I*%'* ..ra

H H
.. ..
HH
.1

LA
I.
F:. .


.- ,* Disinfects ..t d.,
i the label"affixed to each of the b x&b.
Sand misleading; and by reason. Of the dM
and brahded so as to deceive and mislead iti
Iuld be an effective control for pouitrjr lice aMn
Iltry houses when used as directed; wher4S
*ected would not be an effective control k6t
lot disinfect poultry houses.
aving appeared for the property, judgment of
was ordered by the court that the product bE
*rshal.
A-THUR M. HYDE, Seoretary of Agriculture,


tin"


1205.


Misbranding of
Plea of guillty.


Blgler Protecto powder. U. S. v. G.
Fine, $10 and costs. (I. & F. No. 1480.


. highNer Ca.
Ddm. No. 22129.)


Examination of samples
interstate shipment showed
fluoride than represented;
claimed to possess; and it f
On June 12, 1928, the U


Illinois, acting u
District Court of
against the G. R.
by said company
8, 1926, from the
Bigler Protecto p
It was alleged
the statements,
Fluoride 1.8%."


were fal


was
cont
M
"Bi
and
born
"Bi
hair


T I I


of Biglh
that it
it did
ailed to
united S


pon a report by
the United Stat
SBigler Co., a co
in violation of th


er Protecto powder from the herein-described
contained less nicotine, sulphur, and sedihfl
not possess certain insecticidal propertieC it
declare inert ingredients as required by ii,
states attorney for the Southern District .f
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in tt2d
es for the district aforesaid an infbrmatidn
rporation, Springfield, Ill., alleging shitpmnht
e insecticide act of 1910, on or about October


State of Illinois into the Sta
owder which was misbranded.
in the information that the
"Active Ingredients Nicotine
borne on the label affixed to


misleadin


and by


reason


labeled so as to deceive and mislead
gained less nicotine, sulphur, and sodium
isbranding was alleged for the further re:
gler Protecto Powder Formerly Put Out
Plants of Many Insects and Lice Which
ie on the label of the said bags, togeth
gler IXL Dry Dip Directions For Hors


r. Dust


thoroughly
places they
beds, floors
on the floor
over night.
cracks. Do


Dip foi
n.-4 :*im


in beds
into the
sleep.
ind crack
of their
For PC
not dust


r winner
.naf^ ta- Sn/


a
ha
Fo
ms
sl
nl


(


and


On


nd about the
ir and blanke
r Hogs. Dust
of their houses
keeping places,
try, Sprinkle
the poultry.


stalls.
t over
thorot
. For
and ov
about


Same


Summer," appearing


te of Missouri, of a quantity


article was misbranded
.1%, Sulphur 4.0%,
the bags containing the
the said statements the


the purchaser
fluoride than


since said
labeled.


in that
Sodium
articl0
artikl6
articia


ason that the following statements,
as I. X. L. Dry Dip Relieves Stocp
Retard Growth and Sap Vitality,"
er with the following statements,
es. Brush it thoroughly into the
For Cattle. Where lousy, rub
night, throw liberally in beds or .
ughly over the hogs and in their
Colds or Flue. Scatter thoroughly -
er the hogs and shut the hogs up
tAie>. cicken< hnr Lditntn


direction
in the c
fr- n~~r ^jnn


for mangy condition. The
ircular accompanying the
.nPt-'T,, -, ,.. ,, -d ",v^rta ,t


I


1







claimedin the*
claimed in the above-quoted statements
A.'


from


the bag


label


was alleged


for the


ht rther reason


thai


the article consisted


.un wa- a -.... -. au auaa- .-.,-
S. -2 Itnert subutances or ingredients, namely, substances that do not
Cstroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the name and the percentage
of each and .every one of the said inert ingredients present in the
HBWere not stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the bag
l.lnb the article; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage
tof each and every ingredient of the article having insecticidal prop-
s, and the total percentage of the said inert substances or ingredients
ent in the article stated plainly and correctly on the said label.
n September 30, 190, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on
alof the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $10 and costs


AaRTHU M. HYnb,


Secretary of


Agriculture.


* I.

















Zr)


A*~ *~


411M3'i


I.. *


:~


'~.


t
.1


I <


L~PILUISt


.. .


144 Iii
di. at Imiis4fl
.11. *.r di


*


It


INDEX TO NOTICE OF JUDGMENT 101-12U


N. J. No.
Bigler Protecto powder:
Bigler, G. B., Co..........------- 1205
Chloro-Zol:
American Drug & Chemical Co--_ 1201
Margo's bottled moth preventative, in-
sect preventative, and deodorizer:
Margo Sales Co.- -. ----.... -. 1202

98


N. N.
Sta-Way lice and mite pool. for
poultry:
M-Onez Laboratories__--_-_.. 10S
Ucco'
Union Control Corporation....... 120


.i




















"i*

1.


I. I


* I '


?kUJ.


I jp. *


I


















.,L... he
A-..;

~ ~1 *

..si H~ H~.
I. IH**.



I. j.:h. :~
:=Y'r- .: LI

as ~s. .~ *,

.--H .~jflji I c.j~HI. ~..
5
H* H
I. t
H
~.I.II..
H



I.E.. .

...
Hj *
-~ In
H .~
H

*I*. .


I.IIH II~.
W.H~hi H
N :r::t. *HI* .
HI
Pr Al.
~ S.
HH* .. I
II!:
C

4 -.


SI..
H ~. ~
III... ...
i...1>




























I...
L.fl.i. H it
*HIL..j 4EEIb. *HH:.15..rH .. ...!.. i... S.:.
V .-.. ....
4
t
IF *fl. I.E *
.EHh" Hi~
.. *~'hS.h .4.
rH. ... A
~ H .. **. *...

*1k -
i LIH
V

I.
'*1.


I



.4 1
I.

4.
4..
I.'

I.
1*



J.

I. 4
*

















































C.