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:
AA00008549:00009

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text


*1sI*


uh"t".


I:
51.
Er. I....
I.
!F~ .~KLk
I.
"H


citedd


4 .
H"I
vjii:
": :*'3.'


S tes D

* W(OD AND
* ~ .CX .4
. M= 6I "H
o*


Issued January,


department


DRUG ADMINISTRATION


rI
I.
4) I 4 ~
4t; P
4V
L ~


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


- [Given pursuant to section 4 of the insecticide act]
4*:: C,. : :: *


1211-121B


4


LI by.the Secretary of Agriculture,


Washington, D. C.,


January,


1C
S&duJlteration and misbranding of No-Bae-T. U. S. v. 3
Ba-.T. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
; lcthahn. (I. & 7. No. 1547. S. No. 241.)
IStiJason of samples of No-Bac-T, a product intended for use
t^ (bacteria), showed that the article contained a larger
ingredients and a smaller proportion of active ingredients
e label. The labels also represented that the article was


11' possessed a phenol coefficient of
lh* it was not nonpoisonous, it did
w obld not sterilize and disinfect as
WI mane 25, 1931, the United States


11, 1932]


SJugs of Wo-
and destrue-

in the control
proportion of
than declared
nonpoisonous,


10 and would sterilize and disinfect,
not possess a phenol coefficient of 10,
claimed.
attorney for the Eastern District of


Pitt acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
Mct Coort of the United States for the district aforesaid a lii
ireand condemnation of thirty-six 1-gallon jugs of the said No
i alleged in the libel that the article had been shipped on or about
1, by M. TL. Shepard, from Wilmington, N. C., into the State of Vi
t awtag been so transported it remained unsold in the original
"at Petersburg, Va., and thatlit was an adulterated and
within the meaning of the insecticide act of 1910.
action of the article was alleged in the libel for the areas
pMnts, to wit, "Inert Water 85%,! Active 15%," borne on the 1
&ijugs and cartons containing the s~id article, represented that i
tiEality were such that it contained inert ingredients, i. e., subs
t*prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria), in the
ot more than 85 per cent; and confined active ingredients, i. e.,
Go prevent, destroy, repel, or mit] ate fungi (bacteria), in the
alpIess.than 15 per cent, whereas t e strength and purity of the
B the professed standard and qua ity under which it was sold
tnd inert ingredients in a propo ion greater than 85 per cent


IAec. .in a proportion
itanding was alleged
teis". 15% *
| s living, *
x- .~b1iuL H inB _1


less than 1


for the rei
* A n.
* and di


Super cent.
ison that the statements,


lied in the
bel praying
-Bac-T. It
it March 9,
Irginia, and
.1 unbroken
misbranded


)n that the
abel affixed
ts standard


tances that
proportion
substances
proportion
article fell
, in that it
and active


"Inert


Water


n-poisonous preparation for
infecting milk utensils, milking ma-
~4-4n.. a a d- a a. n n n a n a ru 1-


Agriculture


INSECTICIDE


ACT


1


k







106


INSEOTICIDE
4
I


ACT


of active ingredients, it was not nonpoisonous, it did not poi
coefficient of 10, and when used as directed it would not sterilize,
as a disinfectant, and would not prevent blood poisoning in cows.
On September 22, 1931, no elaimant having appeared for the j
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was <
court that the product be destroyed by the United States marsha
ARTHrB M. HBDt, Seoretary of


Misbranding of Cedaflaxe. U. S. v. 6 Boxes of Cedaflaxe. Defo
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & .F
1550. S. No. 242.) '* -.
labels of the product Cedaflaxe represented that the article would
ve against moths and would expel and drive out moths, whereas oex
n showed that it would not be effective for such purposes when used


C
I
I



3
:1


d. Examination showed
and percentage of the inei
ed by law.
ruly 24, 1931, the United
upon a report by the S
of the United States for
ndemnation of 6 boxes, e
* in the libel that the artil


r


further that the labels
t ingredients present in


States atto
secretary of
the district
ach contain
cle had beez


by the R. Flint Corporation, from Brooklyn, N
that having been so transported it remained


pack


ages


at Baltimore,


meaning of the insecticide
Misbranding of the arti
statements. "Cedaflaxe X
specially treated to insure
Directions For Use. 1. H
closet closed when not in


New Cedaflaxe
bags containing
said statements
lead the purch&
directed, would
whereas it wou
Misbranding
partially of in
cedar oil, that
mitigate insect
every one of t


plainly and
nor, in lieu


cost
g the
s the
aser,


s less t
article
article
in that


rney for the
Agriculture,
Saforesaid a
ing 42 bags
i shipped on


failed to declare :...
the article in mann "..

District of Marylandg'
filed in the Distr :
libel praying seiz:l',p:.
of Cedaflaxe. It wg. if
or about May 4, 1934:ri,
he State of Maryland.
the original unbroken |.i
insecticide within t.:* i
Hh *'
r the reason that tjj.:i
Lromatic Cedar Wo4
* Drives out motbq. s


loset. 2. Keep door of :i
Cedaflaxe periodiefs... |.
the label affixed to t4.-?
and by reason of th."i
as to deceive and ni-
.d article when usedfas.:4a


I


. Y. into t
unsold in


and that it was a misbranded


ct of 1910.
le was alleged in
els Moths Made
full insecticidal v
ng bags in each


use. 3. Replace
han new clothes,"
, were false and
was labeled and
they represented


the
from
alue.


corner of c
with new
borne on t
misleading.
branded so
that the sai


Sbe effective against moths and would expel and drive out moth,
Jd not be effective for the said purposes when used as directed& .;
was alleged for the further reason that the article constil


ert substar
is to say.


s (min
ie sai


correctly
thereof,


oths),
d iner


on
were


every one of the substan
properties, and the total
article, stated plainly and
On September 14, 1981
ment of condemnation an
court that the product be


ices, to wit, substances other than naphthalene an. g
, substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel,. ':::
and the name and percentage amount of each andigi
t substances so present in the article were not atated :Hi
the label affixed to the bags containing the artele P:B.
the name and the percentage amount of each At flr|
ces or ingredients of the article having insecticidfl ;:,
percentage of the inert substances present in tIE.
correctly on the said label. i
no claimant having appeared for the dr d::
d4 oroeItdre was entered an% at was or ren .:. ;
destroyed by the United States marshal. .


AITHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of


a


1212.


The
effect
inatioi
direct<
name
provide
On.
acting
Court
and ce
allege(


--m


t




-.000-0--lot
* .* I. t. ** I I'
I


P4~ ~Tp:.I.: Lftq *
'I H
I I
Sant'


4.:
.
I .
4'...


*. .."
: *'0* '
*.,-.:'*


y MI k-.*I h :
V I.. .... .. .. :
.. :.. .:. : *
* .New Yor1. N.
Sso tmaaorted
..k.. I J3., and
i .the insaeeticide ai


* O


NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 107


I
I


Y., on or about June 1, 1931, to Newark, N. J., that having
it remained unsold in the original unbroken packages at
that it was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning
t of 1910.


%llbranding-of the article was alleged in th
teq.ents, to wit, "Odora Peak Deodorant and
I:*-jIltt.moth destroyer, destroys roaches, insects
. 'iABile oders in bathrooms, basements, closets,
ITtn: ah of the said peaks, were false and mislea
'"a sttements the article was labeled and branded
SI. nhtaser. in that they represented that the
Wii would be effective against moths, roaches, and
S:pe tionable odors in bathrooms, basements,
1 iPfle.,when used as directed, would not be el


aft.:RJal insects, and
anita, elosets, etc.
OQn.July 29, 191, ]
m demnation and f
that the product be
*4
f134.. Adulteration
soap. U. S.
Soap. Defa
tleon. (F. &
Examination of s
that the article cont
label.
On March 30, 193
Missouri, acting upx


e libel for the reason that
Moth Destroyer *
;, etc. Removes ob
etc.," borne on the label aft
ding; and by reason of the
so as to deceive and mislead


article when
all insects,
closets, etc.;
elective agai[


the
Most
jec-
Lxed
said
the


used as directed,
and would remove
whereas the said
ist moths, roaches,


would not remove objectionable odors in bathrooms, base-

no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment of
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court
destroyed by the United States marshal.


AaRTHUR M. HYor, Secretary of


and misbranding of Sulpho-Tobacco
v. 1% Gross Bars of Sulpho-Tobacco
ult degree of condemnation, forfeit
D. No. 1539. S. No. 232.)
amples of Sulpho-Tobacco plant and a
ained less soap, nicotine, and sulphur tt


1,
)n


District Court of the United
seizure and condemnation of
and animal soap. It was all'
on -or about January 24, 1929,
the State of Missouri, that
original unbroken packages a


and misbranded insect
Adulteration of the
statements, "Soap 87.4
on the label affixed toc
standard and quality
soap, not less than 0.


the United States attorney
a report by the Secretary


Sta
1%8
eged
by t
hav
t St


icide within
article was
5%, Nicotin
the carton
were such t
5 per cent


sulphur; whereas the strength a
standard and quality under whi
nicotine, and sulphur than so d
Misbranding was alleged for
appearing on the carton label w
said statements the article was
lead the purchaser, in that they
less than 87.5 per cent of soap,


tes for the c
gross bars (
in the libel
he Larkin Co
ing been so
:. Louis, Mo.,
the meaning
Alleged in t
Le (C0oH,4N2)
s containing
hat it contain
of nicotine,


nd purity of
ich it was s
declared.
the reason
'ere false an
labeled and
represented
not less tha


less than 1 per cent of sulphur; whereas
and sulphur than so represented.
SOn June 30, 1931, no claimant havin
of condemnation and forfeiture was en
.A.LaA.. A.L ~~~-- -- -- -- -----_ .W_.J. M- _.____ *M e A *I_*gr -


Agriculture.


plant and animal
Plant and Animal
tre, and destrue-

nimal soap showed
ian declared on the


for the Eastern
of Agriculture,


District
filed in


district aforesaid a libel praying
if the said Sulpho-Tobacco plant
that the article had been shipped
. (Inc.), from Buffalo, N. Y., into


transported
and that it


tine
libel
%, S
art
not
not


inse'
for
ulph
icle,
less
less


g of
:he
0.5
the
led
and


it remained
was an adu
cticide act of
the reason t
ur (S) 1.0%,
represented
than 87.5 per
Than 1 per


in the
Iterated
1910.
hat the
" borne
that its
cent of
cent of


the article fell below the professed
old, in that it contained less soap,


that the
d mislead
branded
that the
n 0.5 per


above-q
ing, and
so as to
said arti
cent of


the article contained


uoted statements
by reason of the
deceive and mis-
cle contained not
nicotine, and not
ess soap, nicotine,


g appeared for the property, judgment
tered, and it was ordered by the court
* j q i Ev 1 .. __ __ l._ 5








108


INSECTICIDE. ACO.


U
'H
H
I N. I.


Interstate Chemical COb., a corporation, Jersey City, N. J$&Jllegig
said company, in violation ofthe.insecticide act of 1910, .titsh abo h
21, 1929, from the State of New Jersey into the State 4 mathetu
quantity of Mag-O Tite which was misbranded. :.:Y :.:":. : ...i...i.i
It was alleged in the information that the article was azisbraidt :t.b
the statements, to wit, Mag-0-Tite found by many usWv .t l.e helpful
control of Root Maggot on Cabbage, Brussels Sprouts, eauiMfloer,$^lJ:bJ


ishes, Onions, Broccoli, Turnips, Rutabaga,"
packages containing'the article, represented
as directed, would be helpful in the control of
cabbages, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, kale,
and rutabaga, whereas it would not.
Misbranding was alleged for the further


partially of inert substances or ingredients,
naphthalene and lead arsenate, and the name
and every inert substance so present therein
rectly on the label affixed to the packages co
thereof, were the name and percentage amount
of the article having insecticidal properties,
inert substances or ingredients present in the a
on the label.
On May 22, 1931, a plea of guilty to the in
of the defendant company, and the court impose


borne on them Ildbael affi4xedfI r
that the maidt attele, whe*
root maggots that. ifst a t
radishes, onions, broceol, t..a
I,,i ik


reason


that the


to wit, substances .thr'PM
and percentage amaont *
were not stated plainlyrieiu
staining the article ;.-h'4li I
t of each substance 0.r4
and the total percentage~.
article, stated plainly and

Formation was entered o .bt
ed a fine of $75r. '


ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of AgrfIt.
'* 1 ef. a *


INDEX


Oedaflaxe:
Flint, R.,
Mag-O-Tite:
Interstate
No-Bac-T:
Shepard.


NOTICES OF


N. J. No.


Corporation_


Chemical


L. ---- -


1212
1215
1211


JUDGMENT 1211-1215


Odora Peaks: ..
Odora Co ....----- ."
SSulpho-Tobacco plant and ma"i---f
Larkin Co........-- e


4fl t.
4


9 4
K


UNIVERSITY OF FL

f II I HI I NIH EN llIII lil Htt111111i
3 1262 08582 4752