VY J i. /, m::i
' S 5 & -
"T = [ i
* .. ...
.. ~.& -
1 hj.. : !
of 'the insecticide a.t]
Wa iigtpn,' ., April 28, 1932]
.K. .tl ? '., v. George, Garnet (The Go. H.
..... S"*hIr Co.)&. Ple. of guilty. n'fl, i0O. (L & F.
...i. Drain Aid. showed that it was .labeled as being
i iat g, a-.ais a dral disinfectant, whereas it would not
ti.ed as directed. The, article contained inert ingredi-
g.. .d()id' no.tipoesi n fungieidal properties,2 and the label
...... k in manner prescribed by law.
h| h3UliUted sStates attorney for -the Eastern District of
't--itpovttbyeth Secrettry of Agriculture, filed in the
rtf*tte. United States for he district aforesaid an information
.aruetji AaMtown, a., charging shipment in interstate
s.FIDB.tt, hi h was a misbranded fungicide within
4hn4Iticitde afit bf: I0. Two shipments by the said de-
Sdcdae.:On-or-teae t member '14, 1930, under the name of
"w.tiate the. State o Massachusetts, and one oui or about
etfer theuame.of't th. Wyeth; Supply Co., into the State of
Sl.. article.iwas. -lI -eg for the. reason that the statement,
.. .... 'Disinfects,' bocrit on the label affixed to the packages
nltn i was fathle agid misleading; and by reason of the
....ltn lbbeled'an4 branded so as to d'eeite and mislead
.ut k t.ttrnpxspeasuted- that the article when ured as directed
WS^citf.shseteasfitb l.. not disinfect drains when used' as
+aitlltge 'fr the' futtler reason that the article consisted
IS ..bslbtv ',r .-ingreaents, to wit, substances ,otl'er than
M4oditw cahqrtate, a l4 pine oil, that is to .say, substances
.. .S.. .T'rep ,-itigate fungi and the name and per-
..o.ie.. otole sid Insd substances so present therein were
....uiS.otttotly? d ,t.h6 abel affixed to each of the packages
..:...h +'i i. th eof, were the name and- percentage
t ..l tita 1. bactericidale) properties, and the
..Ae smbstalesi -1 ^ent in. the article, stated plainly and
Jl-_ -_N.f" + ] [il +. +:,!? ".,'** J 0 .. :;*. ". .. .:
4lfl.w. h.ti-it b prodw ':alSo involved aw iolatioti of the Fed-
_...e".. N&NbNt'.. h 7NO."b 2),' UbtW tiblations being cov-
.. i.~.. 14.1' 19314, the -'ddfendant entered a plea' of
,B.npB.. mposed a fine of $50 as penalty for
I. : .*
Sfit l~r" "fJt K*' E* ,L ijr ^S *^ t- I :- .
Sodium BlibQfleride .14ia%.: It;u Ing t..W J
guard No. 2, borne on the packages :onftt.g t" arti.es,
standard 4t quality 'c':tile &tfioIe.s"'ere'.ast't"at t'
naphthalene, and sodium :silicoflahride. in thle,:porirtros. ..
labels, and ontainfidiet ingredients. that iy tomy' s.btma.cuhi..
prevent detroy1 refp,: .r mitigate insects ora thiugp,: a t:4.'.
dared; wberens the :t. gt? and palrity of the artinal Alie
standard' and quaMty lander whieh they were- sold,' .i that 1 ,
sulplir, ls~a jthalenen and' lesuoedium ,lliek uowiand
su ph r les I^**P H'-X I j~u cB^~l~
ents .than so il re. :4 :.f- .=; .. '
Misbr.iding was. .leged for th*4 reason thAt the. stteu
the labelts, a as bove quoted were-..ise and. miieadik-gan. '7:
said statements the articles.were Albeled and branded so. N
mislead the purchaser, slice the !aid articles.. .oon.at:ae~d
naphthalene, less sodium silicofluor e, and more inert ingredient*d
on the said labels.- Misbrandingt.f Plantgard No:. 1-"-."a
further reason that the statements regarding the article, t. wit, ..
Is not a hit-er-miss mixture, blt ai6ieutifSall deVise@ fnllii
in one preparation fu fcidal ,. Propetl
label, were false and misleadaingr kt that the said statements,..
the" article when id ea directed was a satisfactory. gie
said article..when. usedas directed was not a satisfactory .t4
. branding of Plaatgard No. S was alleged. for the further =rm~en...uS
ments, to wit, "Is to be used agabnt certain garden pests, ind
worms, potato beetles, bean beetle,. -* .* as wUll asE. Sl
infest pumpkin, cucumber ad smelon vines, .hrn e '.ry.ilwio
vegetables. ,Plantgard'1 i not a hit.or-nuss mixta butfl t
formula that contains .the repelleu.propertes. o-f n.h alen. ...
properties of sulphur, and the inseeticidalprOpertieSi oX..t.:tu...
* A dust ump that can be adjist$ .u..ut. ute.
leaves is a great conveenice,.espe.llypin .rolll... he .
borne :on.the labels, were false and misleagigs. n as .m. .
ments .*.. article was labeled an::.branded. Sas.o tod~ .:r .,i.
purchaser, in that they represented that the article wI ut'li^
be effective against cabbage worms, potatpor heet.s,.,..
insectp.that iufest, pumpkin, cueumnber, an. mon.mlob $is.
plants, and .garden.. vegetables; .w.oll be .offeete .ega.ii~l|p
centrotable with naphthalene, sulfur,3 nnd..oS0i3nJW1 e
effective against fungous diseases of plants whitd are aco
and woupd ..f effective against .the. Metienean b ean alled. whereas i
whi. i..d. .iMrt ...ildnnt .bsfartiv farthe kiA.nrtani,
..Ut.sti: 1heflnite States attorney filed in the District
...O Unit :Staesrtov.the-district aforesaid a libel praying seiznre .nand
otef eventyAl-gfBtn cans o Cairbicide. It was alleged in the libel
ldItld beaihipdeon or about May 27, 1931, by the Chemical In-
*Vite (Ine) fJt' hMontgomery, Pa., into the State of Delaware,, that
stranspwtd it remained uns'ld in the original unbroken packages
*.faIi; 'ant that it was- a misbfnded insecticide within the meaning
deu act't f1910k. '
rg of the article swas allegedin the libel for the reason that the
t, 1 .Gallon Net," borne on the label affixed to the cans containing the
alented,.that the meanss each contained 1 gallon net of the article;
f~thLS quantity i-.centenis .f each of the said packages was not stated
-.Si onborre#, omthe outside of the packages, in that each of the cans
i tmian 1 gallun i t of. the said article.
..r 1, 191;:fro claimant having appeared for the property, judg-
|irenacdalmati sand forfeiture wad. entered, and it was ordered by the
t at the. psduct .be ,destroyed by the United States marshal.
...,y-4 :- .:.'. S ArrBUHtiM. HYD, Secretary of Agriculture.
jP ( .' 'i .':." ..! .
.AAulteration and misbranding of Ucco. U. S. v. 37 Gallons of Ueeo.
..i"IDbon.t .deeoee. of etndemnatioi, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. &
S *. -L,. o. 2 )
mainatioa of a product intended for ,use as an insecticide, and sold under
WlmfloL" Ucco,' showed that the
.4* tel a, declared on. the label.
..:Novrmber 17, 1980, the United
Iitbag upon a. report by the Secretary
%the United States for the district
aWtion of. 87 gallons of the said
.W..lie had been shipped on or about
poatation, from.. Caudersport, .Pa., into
||.t '."te4 .i remained unsold in t e
l. and: that it was an adulterated
Being of the insecticide act of 1910.
I Adulteration of
*ated that the sa
on of not more
rtiele fell below
h that it contain
lan 25 per cent.
article contained a much larger proportion
States attorney for the District of Maine,
of Agriculture, filed in the District Court
aforesaid a libel praying seizure and con-
Jcco. It was alleged in the libel that the
April 1, 1930, by the Union Control Cor-
the State of Maine, that having been so
original unbroken packages at Biddeford,
and misbranded insecticide within the
the article was alleged in the libel for the
Ingredient-Water, not over 25%," borne on
d article contained an inert ingredient, w
than 25 per cent; whereas the strength
the professed standard and
ed the inert ingredient, wat
Adulteration was alleged
Itoment aforesaid, appearing on the label,
lTied inert ingredients, that is to say, substa
.1, of mitigate insects, in the proportion
er, in a
t do n
of not more
reason that the
the label, repre-
rater, in the
which it w
er reason t
at the arti
Vhereas it did not contain inert ingredients in the proportion of not more than
Piper cent, but another substance, water, had been substituted in part for the
I Misbranding was alleged for the reason that
i.nert Ingredient-Water not more than 25%," w
S.reason of the said statement the article was h
. Ve and mislead the purchaser, in that it repr
IKthe inert ingredient, water, in the proport
t whereas it contained water in a proportion m
$ ~February 5, 1931, no claimant having appeared
Ih..#nulfttrmnnnHn aend Fjwfanf tnra wa oninraol and
the statement on the label,
as false and misleading: and
labeled and branded so as to
esented that the article con-
ion of not more than 25 per
uch greater than 25 per cent.
id for the property, judgment
it wn narairMd hv the ronrt
and misbranded insecticide and.;fungicd':.itthinm.tbenanijng of V:|.
act of l91t il. :''-;. f -* ^.^. .r" .*inp i s l
Adulteration of the article wan. allegM ial..the libel for .thermehsw.:.l
statements, to wit,. "Ansbasher'sT Paris;.Been 8%e.to 4)%o :., : 'P .!"|
gredients 49% to 53%,"' borne on.the label-.afxed to the drmns .ool.iu
said article, represented that its staa ar&tnd quality were.ua*i:.tbahJib
tamined Paris green in thesproporti.on of :not les than 88 pet ceati a*a
inert .ingredients, namely, substances ;that do. not prevent, de8utberyf
mitigate insects and fungi,'in the proportion..ef not .morei than-. int
whereas the strength .and.purity of the rtiqLe fell below the professed sa
and quality under which it was sold, in that it contained less than 88 per e
of Paris green. andmore than 53 per cent of inert ingredients...., :: i
Misbranding was .alleged for the reason that: the. statements, t'nsaebi-
Paris Green 38% to 40% Inert Ingredients 49% to 53%" -borne u,
the label, were false and misleading; and by reason of the said statemateU
article was labeled so. as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, .in tsattS
represented that th
and not more than
contained less than
e article contained not less than 3B per cent ot .flrIa
53 per cent of inert ingredients; whereas thd'saldlad
38 per cent of 'Paris green, and more than 5 poee t
inert ingredients. :.. ':. I i -.,;]
On November 4, 1981, no claimant having appeared for :the'property ,
meant of .condemnation and forfeittUmre was entered, and it was .ojdere b|i
court that the product be destroyed by the United States marsabL L, .t-*i
*- Awrnug M. HYDEB, Merel 'ry of Ag**4ifftI
I i~l *
*.1 J *
rL 'fptiW. d~~t:t~
I .. *~HI
* *. .4. 4*j...
* I C14~u J
:. *: .:.. ..
. : T .*, f H l:
!^ ~'-'-^is?- "!!
~ ~ ~ ~ i : 3
'" s ,,
,r '.I. .:i .
** H J..: **
N. J. No.
.-5- ---- ---- --
Chemical Insecticide Bervice
a Aid :
Garnet. G. H --..... .... _--
Garnet, Geo. H.. Co -..---.-..
Wyeth Supply Co.
Plantgard No. 1:
- S -
. C. **q
,. .. -ip: .-. i..
' .. "ii.' .E .. ":", i
:* ** ,, *,,
"" ": .. E
' 4U 't0 f
* 4**4 ~**
.* H .
-* .. "'4
v ::** ***
" ," "" .i,,
: H *i M
re .. "i:B
*s :~ 4
... .~ ..r!Y ~ 2. *
.r*, H Hi .4
IA.. ..t:r:h&Si....... **.:
H. 'H ~>:.
... I. *.
*:;~~ *~ *~ je.
qj: !n..'~*-.Ij~JIcI~:iirL&. ,,r.*- *
.t *4a j4. .
~ FA. *. :L:ts i~i.H : ~
H *:'*.j .. .. .~t;*
S.. .. ..
tsII : 4.::* A:
HI: .A .
1If***.~* ... .
I~. *. I.
lJi:v. at; *.
.q ~ ..~. -
.7 ..:..., -
H LII.:. *. : F
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
111nl III 111111|01111111Nliii11111111111Mi
3 1262 08582 4778
SI "il i" : ::"" .*:: .
S" *.:. **.. :_ .. .. .. .... ... N
-. *. .... ... ...gi
.. "...:. ::ii':.M
: .-. .. .
.... : g'[ .... i:... .:. *" *
I HH II. HII C.... ..
... .... H... ..
.. H K W H:N:." ":.j~
.. :"::ii"* :: EE.I
. H.. ||
* .r ..
.:. i :i. ii;
*** ::, *,
* ... .::