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:
AA00008549:00016

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text

*3 C


N.J., LU'. 1286-iSil


Issued July 1934


United


States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


I 217


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the insecticide act]
1296-1311


[Approved by


the Acting


Secretary


of Agriculture,


Washington,


D.C.,


12, 1934]


1I96. Misbranding of Tarolfeetant. U. S. v. Sioux Oil Tar Disinfeeting Co.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. no. 1660. Sample no. 22116-A.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of a product sold as an insecti-
cide and fungicide, the labeling of which bore unwarranted claims as to its
effectiveness as a disinfecting agent, also as to its effectiveness in the control of
mange of hogs and in the control of vermin.
On November 15, 1933, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
trict court an information against the Sioux Oil Tar Disinfecting Co., a cor-
poration, Sioux City, Iowa, alleging shipment by said company on or about
March 4, 1933, from the State of Iowa into the State of Minnesota, of a quantity
of Tarolfeetant which was a misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the
meaning.of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in that the


statements, For *
for all Germs Fori
and Places where Chickens
floors and roosts until they
wash, For mang
Mangy Hogs, *
label of the drum containing
reason of the said statement


Disinfecting Chicken Coops
SDisinfecting Chicken Houses
Roost. Apply Tarolfectant
r are completely covered as
y, scurvy hogs
* For all ve
.g the article, were false anm


* Disinfecting


Houses
ceiling,
white
scurvy
on the


and Brooder
to the walls,
with paint or
* for
rmin", borne


1 misleading, and by


s the article was labeled so as to deceive and mis-


lead the purchaser, in that they represented that the article was a disinfectant
and would disinfect chicken coops, chicken houses, brooder houses, places where
chickens roost, walls, ceilings and floors; that the article, when used as di-
rected, would be effective against all varieties of mange that infest hogs, and
would be effective against all vermin; whereas it was not a disinfectant, would
not disinfect chicken coops, chicken houses, brooder houses, places where chick-
ens roost, walls, ceiling and floors, and when used as directed, would not be
effective against all varieties of mange that infest hogs, and would not be
effective against all vermin.
The information also charged a violation of the Food and Drugs Act (N.J. no.
21233). On November 15, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered
on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50 for


72


L








176


INSECTICIDE


ACT


in the district court a libel, and on October 10, 1933, an amended libel, praying
seizure and condemnation of 40 quart cans of Rabbit Supto at Chicago, Ill.,
alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about


March 15
charging
Insecticid
It was
ments on
infectant


, 1933, by the Supto Manufacturing Co., from Des Moin
that it was a misbranded fungicide within the me
e Act of 1910.
alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in t
the label, "Rabbit Supto is the greatest non-poisonous
and deodorant ever produced. Its action is


es, Iowa, and
aning of the

hat the state-
germicide dis-
positive and


permanent and its penetrating ability unequaled. Directions For Use: As a
general disinfectant, once a week spray the drain boards and about once a
month give the hutch a thorough spraying. Remove the rabbits for about 24
hours to allow Supto to completely penetrate into floor ", were false and mis-
leading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the article was
not the greatest germicide, disinfectant, and deodorant ever produced, it was
not nonpoisonous, its action was not permanent, and it would not disinfect
when used as directed.
The libel charged a violation of the Food and Drugs Act, reported in notices
of judgment published under that act. On November 13, 1933, no claimant
having appeared for the property, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was
entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product be destroyed by the
United States marshal.


M. L. WILSON,


Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1298. Misbranding of
Fine, $25. (I.
This case was based
repellent and preventive
directed, was valueless


On Decemb
Jersey, acting
court an info
shipment by
Jersey into ti
misbranded ix


No-Mo. U. S. v. The Emeloid Co., Inc. Plea of guilty.
& F. no. 1669. Sample no. 43222-A.)
on a shipment of a product intended for use as a moth
e. Examination showed that the article, when used as
for such purposes.


er 18, 1933, the
upon a report by
rmation against
said company, on
ae State of New
isecticide within


It was alleged in the ii
the following statements,
around. Will cedarize 75
or storeroom. Makes your
from the bottle. Then pl


Unit
the
the
or
Yor
the


ed States attorney for the District of New
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
Emeloid Co., Inc., Arlington, N. J., alleging
about May 9, 1933, from the State of New


k,
m


formation
No-Mo K
cu. ft. of
closet a c(
ace the b


wick is between the neck of the bottle
Moths Away. Uses No-Mo Makes
stand the No-Mo odor. They won't
stalled. No-Mo will cedarize 75 cu. f
on the floor or attach it to the base
closet, storeroom, or storage trunk,
appearing in the labeling, were fal


said statements ti
chaser, since the
and would not pro
On January 19,
company, and the


ae article was labeled
article, when used as
)tect clothing from mo
1934, a plea of guilty
court imposed a fine


of a quantity of "No-Mo ", which was
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
that the article was misbranded in th


e'
o


e

1t


eps
spa
dar
ttle
anm
rour
ay
. of


Moths
ce. N
chest.
in ai
d the f
1 closely
eggs ii
space


at


Away. It can be used all year
o-Mo can be used in the closet
Directions-Remove metal cap
n inverted position so that the
elt pad. No-Mo Keeps
t a cedar chest. Moths cannot
n the closet where No-Mo is in-
. Directions Just place No-Mo


board of the closet.
will protect your
se and misleading,


No-Mo placed in the
clothing from moths ",
and by reason of the


so as to deceive and mislead the pur-
directed, would not keep moths away,
iths.
was entered on behalf of the defendant
of $25.







1298-13fl1


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


177


Connecticut, and Missouri, respectively, of quantities of liquor cresolis com-
positus which was adulterated and misbranded. Portions of the article were
labeled in part: "Cresol Compound U. S. P. (Liquor Cresolis Comp.)." One


shipment was labeled in part: "Liquor Cresoli
It was alleged in the information that the
its strength and purity fell below the profes
which it was sold, since it was represented to
proportions of ingredients specified for liquor


States Pharmacopoeia; whereas it did not (si
been substituted for linseed oil, one of the
pharmacopoeia). Adulteration was alleged for
fatty material had been substituted for linseed
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that
pound U. S. P. (Liquor Cresolis Comp.)" with re
and the statement, "Liquor Cresolis Compositus
remainder, borne on the drum labels, were falsi


s Compositus
article was
sed standard
contain the
?resolis comp<


nce


other


ingredients
the further
oil.


th
sp
U


U. S. P."
adulterated in that
and quality under
ingredients and the
situss in the United
fatty material had


specified in the
reason that other


e statements, Cresol Cornm-
ect to portions of the article,
. S. P.", with respect to the


e and


misleading, and


by rea-


son of the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead
the purchaser, in that the said statements represented that the article complied
with the requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia for liquor cresolis
compositus; whereas it did not, since other fatty material had been substi-
tuted for linseed oil, one of the ingredients specified in the said pharmacopoeia.
On August 14, 1933, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company, and the court imposed a fine of $40 on each of the eight counts of the
information and ordered that sentence be suspended on all counts but the
first, during the lawful conduct of its business affairs by the defendant.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1300. Adulteration and misbranding of Enz-Odr.
cal Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.
26765-A.)


U. S. v. Republic Chemi-
I. & F. no. 1656. Sample no.


This case was based on an interstate shipment of Enz-Odr. the labels of
which bore false and misleading claims as to its effectiveness as a deodoriz-
ing and disinfecting agent, and as a control for certain insects. The labeling
was further objectionable, since the article contained a smaller proportion
of active ingredients and a greater amount of inert ingredients than declared;
the inert ingredients were not plainly and correctly stated as required by
law, and the article was not nonpoisonous and harmless, as claimed.
On November 29, 1933, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Republic Chemical Co., Inc., Chi-
cago, Ill., alleging shipment by said company on or about May 10, 1932, from
the State of Illinois into the State of Ohio, of a quantity of Enz-Orlr, which


was an adulterated and misbranded in
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the information that
the statements, "Active Ingredients 8.56f


on the bottle label, represented
it contained active ingredients,
or mitigate insects or fungi, in
and contained inert ingredients,
repel, or mitigate insects or fui
percent; whereas the strength
professed standard and quality


that
i. e.,
the
i1. e.,
igi, i


isecticide


the article


SInert


its standard
substances
proportion o
substances
n the propor


fungicide


within


was adulterated


Ingredients


and
that
f not
that
*tion


91.44%


in that
". borne


quality were such that
prevent, destroy, repel,
Less than 8.56 percent,
do not prevent, destroy,


of not more


and purity of the article<
under which it was sold, in


fell


that it


than 91.44
below the
contained







178 INSECTICIDE ACT [N.J., I.F.

when used as directed, it would end odors; woed disinfect homes, theaters,
hospitals, and public buildings; would freshen the atmosphere and would
destroy fetid body odors and those resulting from cooking, tobacco, gasoline,
chlorine, naphtha, congregations, excretions, decaying animal or vegetable
matter, etc.; would destroy, prevent, or absorb the odors of cooking; would
keep refrigerators sanitary and odorless; would insure freshness and sanita-
tion to nurseries; would render soiled or musty mattresses odorless or sani-
tary; would destroy odors of vomiting, and insure pure, odorless air; would
keep the atmosphere in sick rooms odorless and fresh, and would destroy
odors associated with sick rooms; would control offensive odors of leucorrhea;
would destroy odors in the atmosphere of bathrooms, would keep toilets, bath-
rooms, and sinks odorless, and would act as an effective disinfectant in drains
and around the base of the bowl; would keep the air in lockers, rest rooms, and
Turkish baths and the receptacles therein fresh and odorless; would destroy
the odors of garbage cans, and would check the breeding of all vermin therein;
would eliminate odors in outhouses, catch basins, and cesspools, and would
prevent the breeding of all vermin and all insects therein; would destroy and
prevent musty and other obnoxious odors in cellars and musty rooms, and
would prevent the breeding of all vermin and all insects; would prevent and
destroy odors in kennels, stables, manure piles, refuse heaps, and prevent the
breeding of flies therein; would destroy all odors or completely clean the air
in smoking rooms, billiard halls, shooting galleries, etc.; would destroy or
prevent all odors; would make the air fresh and odorless as an ocean breeze;
would disinfect and would insure a healthy, odorless telephone mouthpiece,
would prevent disease, would keep the home odorless at all times, would
disinfect kennels and cages, would prevent the spreading of disease germs;


would keep the air
station, and that it
would prevent the
infectant, was not
would not be effect
Misbranding was
partially of inert


pure and sanitary, would pro
was recommended by health
breeding of all Vermin; where
nonpoisonous and harmless,
ive for the purposes claimed.
alleged for the further reas


substances,


namely


substances


mote health and insure sani-
authorities and doctors, and
as the article was not a dis-
and when used as directed


that
other


the article consisted


than


chloride,


glycerin, and borax, and the name and percentage amount of each inert sub-
stance so present in the article were not stated plainly and correctly on the
bottle label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount of each
and every substance or ingredient of the article having insecticidal or fungi-
cidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert substances present in
the article, stated plainly and correctly on the said label.
On January 9, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.


M. L. WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1301.


Misbranding of Du-Rite Coal Tar Disinfectant.
Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F.
37571-A.)


T. s.
no.


v. Harley Soap
1663. Sample no.


This case was based on an interstate shipment of a product which was a
fungicide within the meaning of the law and which contained an undeclared
inert ingredient.
On November 27, 1933, the United States attorney for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
the district court an information against the Harley Soap Co., Inc., Philadel-
nlnrn DO ltfncr ,v c l dn'rnand -H7 h Qlrl nnrmnnnv nn nn r nhnit- Mnroh 1R 1t. fro'm




~r~4rAIq~i~rr At Air %AAr 1~


1296-1311]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


179


1802. Misbranding of Odor-X. U. S. v. T Cartons of Odor-X.
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.
1623. Sample no. 34208-A.)


Examination of the product Odor-X
unwarranted claims as to its effective
agent.
On May 8, 1933, the United States
Illinois, acting upon a report by the
district court a libel praying seizure
containing 24 packages of Odor-X at
article had been shipped in interstate
1933, by the Real Exterminating Pro
charging misbranding in violation of th<
It was alleged in the libel that th
statements, "For Moths in Overstuffei
borne on the individual packages, and th
Furniture, Clothes Closets, E


Default
& F. no.


disclosed that the labeling contained
tess as a moth control and deodorizing


attorney for the Southern
Secretary of Agriculture,
and condemnation of 7 c


Granite City,
commerce, on


ducts Co.,
e Insecticide
e article wa
d Suites, *
e statements,
tc. *


District
filed in
artons, e


Ill., alleging that
or about February


of
the
ach
the
28,


from St. Louis, Mo., and
Act of 1910.
Ls misbranded in that the
Clothes Closets",
"For Moths in Overstuffed
Odor-X has been designed


especially to overcome unpleasant odors. They do not, like so many other
methods, merely perfume or cover up odors, it gets at the root of the trouble,
dispels odors, corrects foul air. Odor-X is one of the cheapest and safest ways
of insuring moth protection to garments and woolens", borne on the cartons,
were false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the article
was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it would not be
effective against moths in overstuffed suites or against moths in clothes closets
under all conditions; would not be effective against moths in all containers
indicated by the abbreviation "etc."; it would merely cover up odors and
would not get at the root of the trouble, would not dispel odors, would not
correct foul air; and would not insure moth protection to garments and
woolens under all conditions.
On November 27, 1933, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg-
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the
court that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
M. L. WILSON. Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1803. Misbranding of Glidden Tik-Dip.
nolo contender. Fine, $50. (I.
This case involved a product intended
Examination showed that the article


UI. S. v. The Glidden Co. Plea of
& F. no. 1624. Sample no. 7195-A.)
for use in the control of insects.
contained arsenic in combination,


and that the label failed to declare the amount of the arsenic in water-
soluble form, expressed as metallic arsenic, and also failed to declare the
amount of the inert ingredient present.
On June 23, 1933, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Glidden Co., a corporation, trading
at New Orleans, La., alleging shipment by said company, on or about February
3, 1932, from the State of Louisiana into the State of Alabama, of a quantity
of Glidden Tik-Dip, which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in that
it contained arsenic in combination and the amount of arsenic in water-soluble
form, expressed as percentum of metallic arsenic, was not stated on the label
affixed to the drum containing the article. Misbranding was alleged for the
Sn-PtI a nT/^ wean c^n.h 1-1, n-t 4- 44,an tf-^/." r ni a na cd cn4-nA rno ,4-4 n 11T r -v oni Iv nn, c<-nhn+ o- vn nf nrc tar


V


v








180


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


did not possess the germicidal and disinfecting properties claimed; that it
contained an inert ingredient in excess of the a ount declared on the label,
and was mislabeled in other respects.
On April 7, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
an information against the Bristol-Myers Co., a corporation, Hillside, N. J.,
alleging shipment by said company, on or about September 17, 1931, from the
State of New Jersey into the State of New York, of a quantity of Ziratol,
which was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
of 1910.
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in that
the statements, borne on the bottle label, Glycerine 25% Wt. inert ", "Zira-
tol (Practically Non-Poisonous *)", and the statements con-
tained in the circular shipped with the article, "Germicidal Strength-Extensive
bacteriological investigations on many pathogenic organisms, including the
resistant pus germ which in most cases is the cause of infection, have shown
conclusively that Ziratol has high bactericidal value. Ziratol is
therefore, when considered in connection with its high germicidal power, an
extremely Safe antiseptic and germicide for all purposes. Economy
of Use-Because of its germicidal activity, the cost of Ziratol per unit of
germ-killing power is very low when compared with other antiseptics and
germicides. Ziratol has won a high place for itself in the esteem of
the medical and dental professions, because of its unusual combination of high
germicidal activity with low toxicity and virtual freedom from odor. It is,
therefore, recommended with confidence in every condition where a safe, effi-
cient antiseptic and germicide is indicated ", and Surgical Uses for Disinfect-
ing Instruments-Use a 10% solution of Ziratol for disinfecting instruments.


* Dental uses For Disinfecting Instruments-


* Therefore it is


an ideal germicide for disinfecting purposes, especially for burs, hypodermic
needles and other delicate sharp-edged instruments. Use Ziratol in a 10%
solution for this purpose, For Disinfecting Purposes, a 10% solution
is the minimum recommended. Extremely cold water may produce a cloudy
solution but this does not impair the activity of Ziratol", were false and
misleading and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled so as
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the article contained more than
25 percent of glycerin; it was not practically nonpoisonous; it did not possess
high germicidal activity, and was not an effective disinfectant for surgical


and dental instruments or
solution; and the activity
cold water.


On October
company, and


for all
of the ai


other
article


disinfecting purposes in a 10 percent
would be impaired by the presence of


19, 1933, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
the court imposed a fine of $100.
M. L. WILSON. Acting Secretwari of Agriculture.


1305.


Misbranding of
guilty. Fine,


Cedarome. U. S.
$25. (F. & D. no.


v. The N-R-G Products Co. Plea of
1604. Sample no. 8615-A.)


This case was based on a shipment of Cedarome contained in packages
attached to cards, which bore false and misleading claims as to its effectiveness
as a disinfecting and deodorizing agent, and as a control for certain insects.
The article contained an inert ingredient which was not declared on the label
as required by law.
On December 13, 1932, the United States attorney for the Northern District


%*


V








1206---1311]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


181


Guaranteed effective for four months to eight months ", were false and mis-
leading, and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled so as to
deceive and mislead the purchaser; since the article, when used as directed,
would not repel germs, would not disinfect, would not remove odors, would not
be an effective control for moths under all conditions, would not repel all
insects, would not make every wardrobe, trunk, and dresser a cedar chest,
would not protect parlor suites from moths, and would not drive away flies,
roaches, ants, gnats, mosquitoes, crickets, and other insects.
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article consisted
partially of an inert substance, paraffin, that is to say, a substance that does
not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi, and the name and per-
centage amount of the said inert substance present in the article were not
stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the cards attached to the article; nor,
in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount of each and every sub-
stance or ingredient of the article having insecticidal or fungicidal properties,
and the total percentage of the inert substance or ingredient so present stated
plainly and correctly, or at all, on the said cards.
On December 13, 1933, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
M. L. WILSON. Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1306. Adulteration and misbranding of Pine
& Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.
28981-A.)


- Sap.
& F.


U. S. v. G. D. Searle
no. 1633. Sample no.


This case involved a pine oil preparation intended for use in the control of
fungi (bacteria). Examination showed that the article contained less pine
oil than declared; that the label bore unwarranted claims as to its effective-
ness as a disinfecting agent, also that the label failed to declare the presence
of water, an inert ingredient.
On September 22, 1933, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against G. D. Searle & Co., a corporation, Chicago,
Ill., alleging shipment by said company on or about December 29, 1932, from
the State of Illinois into the State of Missouri, of a quantity of Pine-O-Sap
which was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide, within the meaning of
the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that
the statement, "Pine-O-Sap (Searle) is a thoroughly saponified product, 60%
of which is high grade steam distilled Pine Oil produced under a strict system
of chemical control", borne on the label, represented that the standard and
quality of the article were such that it contained not less than 60 percent of
pine oil; whereas the strength and purity of the article fell below the pro-
fessed standard and quality under which it was sold, since it contained less


than 60 percent of pine oil.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that
(Searle) is a thoroughly saponified product, 60%
distilled Pine Oil produced under a strict system
able for general use such as the disinfection of in
and "Disinfectant One teaspoonful to


the statements, "Pine-O-Sap
of which is high grade steam
of chemical control ". "Suit-
struments drains",
a pint of water may be used


as a douche and as a mouth wash or gargle", borne on the bottle labels, were
false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the article was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained less than
60 percent of pine oil, it would not be suitable for the disinfection of instru-


V




Al Al~ NW A *************~


182


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.'.


1807.

This
of 191(
be less
On .
Missou
district
of Fr


Misbranding of Fragrance Crystals. U. S v. 20 Dozen Packages of
Fragrance Crystals. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
and destruction. (F. & D. no. 1634. Sample no. 86797-A.)
case involved a product subject to the prove sions of the Insecticide Act
), in which the net weight of the contents o the packages was found to
than 3 ounces, the weight declared on the l el.
June 29, 1933, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
tri, acting upon a report by the Secretary Of Agriculture, filed in the
t court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 20 dozen packages
grance Crystals at St. Louis, Mo., alleging that the article had been


shipped in interstate commerce, on or about April 24, 1933, by the Embree
Manufacturing Co., from Elizabeth, N.J., and charged misbranding in viola-
tion of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The article was labeled in part: "Fra-
grance Crystals Net weight 3 ozs. when packed."
It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that it was
in package form and the quantity of the contents were stated in terms of
weight, and were not plainly and correctly stated on the outside of the package.
On January 24, 1934, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1308. Misbranding of Car-O-Ite. U. S. v. Carman-Roberts Co. Inc. Plea of
nolo contender. Fine, $10 and costs. (I. & F. no. 1662. Sample no.
40115-A.)
This case involved a shipment of Car-0-Ite, a product intended for use as
a fungicide, which contained inert ingredients that were not plainly and
correctly stated on the label.
On November 17, 1933, the United States attorney for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
in the district court an information against the Carman-Roberts Co., Inc.,
trading at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging shipment by said company in violation
of the Insecticide Act of 1910, on or about June 7, 1933, from the State of
Pennsylvania into the State of Ohio of a quantity of Car-O-Ite which was a
misbranded fungicide within the meaning of said act.
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in that
it consisted partially of inert substances, i.e., substances other than sodium
hypochlorite, that is to say, substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel,
or mitigate fungi (bacteria), and the name and percentage amount of each
and every inert substance so present were not stated plainly and correctly,
or at all, on the label affixed to the carboy containing the article; nor, in lieu
thereof, were the name and percentage amount of the substance or ingredient
of the article having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and the total per-
centage of the said inert substances, stated plainly and correctly, or at all,
on the label.
On December 8, 1933, a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf of
the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $10 and costs.


M. L.


WILSON,


Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1309. Adulteration and misbranding of the Belmont Germicidal Soap.
TI. S. v. Fred Harlow Smith (The Belmont Co.). Plea of nolo con-
tendere. Fine, $8. (I. & F. no. 1649. Sample no. 34580-A.)
rPh'iia ~aeC 11r70 b1arao rn in tnfrTaCfofa QhinmyanT" rnP a rTnnAvu- mTnhiTh rIca V.lt.




on.0. H~ -V.


1296---13111]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


183


in the Belmont Germicidal Soap ", borne on the wrappers, represented that
the article contained mercuric iodide as one of its ingredients, whereas it did
not contain mercuric iodide as one of the ingredients, but other substances had
been substituted wholly for nmercuric iodide.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "The Belmont
Germicidal Soap Mercuric Iodide The powerful germicidal properties
of Mercuric Iodide are remarkably effective in the Belmont Germicidal soap.
* For the sterilization of instruments, cleansing of wounds, washing the
hands before and after operating, and sterilizing the field of operation. *
the active germicide reaches the seat of infection ", borne on the wrappers,
were false and misleading, and for the further reason that the article was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it did not contain
mercuric iodide as an ingredient, would not act as a germicide, and would


not be effective in


the sterilization


of instru:


ments


Misbranding was alleged for the further reason
partially of inert substances or ingredients, i.e., s
vent, destroy, repel or mitigate fungi, and the name
each inert substance present in the article were
rectly, or at all, on the wrapper label; nor, in li
and percentage amount of each substance or ingre
fungicidal properties, and the total percentage of t
in the article, stated plainly and correctly on the
The information also charged a violation of th
ported in notices of judgment published under that
a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf
court imposed a fine of $8, for violation of both acts.


and the field of operation.
that the article consisted
ubstances that do not pre-
and percentage amount of
not stated plainly and cor-
eu thereof, were the name
dient of the article having
he inert substances present
said wrappers.
e Food and Drugs Act, re-
act. On February 12, 1934,
of the defendant, and the


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1310. Misbranding of Justrite Antiseptic Bird Wash. U. S. v. The Justrite
Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $37.50. (I. & F. no. 1661. Sample no.
10120-A.)
This case was based on the interstate shipment of a product, the labels of
which bore false and misleading claims as to its effectiveness as an antiseptic,
and as a control for certain insects. The article contained an inert ingre-
dient which was not declared as required by law.
On November 28, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of New
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against the Justrite Co., a corporation trading at Jersey
City, N.J., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Insecticide Act
of 1910, or on about September 9, 1932, from the State of New Jersey into the
State of New York, of a quantity of Justrite Antiseptic Bird Wash, which was
misbranded.
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in that the
statements, "Antiseptic Bird Wash A necessary antiseptic Once
a week put Justrite Antiseptic Bird Wash in Bath Water. Dose In small Bath
Dish % teaspoonful In large Bath Dish 1 teaspoonful. In Bath House 1 tea-
spoonful Drinking Justrite Antiseptic Bird Wash is healthful to bird. *
An Antiseptic helps to keep birds free from lice, mites and vermin",
borne on the labeling, were false and misleading, and by reason of the said
statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
since they represented that the article, when used as directed, would act as
an antiseptic, and would be effective against lice, mites, and vermin; whereas
the article, when used as directed, would not act as an antiseptic, and would








184


INSECTICIDE


ACT


FN.J., I.'.


1311. Adulteration and misbranding of Cloros Dry Bordo. UI. S. v. Lueas Kl-
Tone Co. Plea of guillty. Fine, $200. (I. & F. no. 1650. Sample naS.
26487-A, 32640-A, 39303-A.)
This case was based on three interstate shipments of a product which was
represented to be pure Bordeaux mixture but whilh was adulterated with sili-
ceous material. The article, when used on vegetation as directed or implied in
the labeling, would be injurious to certain types of vegetation.
On October 30, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of New
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
trict court an information against the Lucas Kil-Tone Co., a corporation, Vine-
land, N. J., alleging shipment by said company on or about December 9, 1932,
from the State of New Jersey into the State of South Carolina, on or about
February 15, 1933, from the State of New Jersey into the District of Columbia,
and on or about April 14, 1933, from the State of New Jersey into the State
of Georgia, of quantities of Cloros Dry Bordo, which was an adulterated and
misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
of 1910.
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that the


statement, "Cloros Dry Bordo ", borne on the label of the bags containing the
article, represented that it consisted entirely of Bordeaux, whereas it did not
consist entirely of Bordeaux, but a substance, siliceous material, had been sub-
stituted in part for Bordeaux. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason
that the article was intended for use on vegetation, and when used on vege-
tation as directed on the label would be injurious to such vegetation.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements "Cloros Dry
Bordo-This Green Cross Dry Bordo dust may be used to mitigate many plant
diseases affected by copper sprays. [In certain shipments the statement ap-
peared as "This green cross dry powder may be used to mitigate many plant
AI; cn r^nc'

l a~sesa eciL u. uj up;. opJ o. j
Japanese Plum foliage, nor for late
apples", borne on the labels of the
reason of the said statements the art
lead the purchaser, in that they repr
of Bordeaux, and, when used as dire
on apple trees for middle and late
did not consist entirely of Bordeaux,
could not safely be so used on a]


Spring or


bags,


early Summer


were false and


applications on


misleading,


icle was labeled so as to deceive and mis-
esented that the article consisted entirely
cted on the label, could safely be so used
summer applications; whereas the article
and, when used as directed on the label,
pple trees for middle and late summer


applications.
On January 26, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company, and the court imposed a fine of $200.


M. L. WILSON, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


INDEX


TO NOTICES


JUDGMENT


1296-1311


Belmont Germicidal Soap:
Belmont Co ---.-----
Smith, F. HI.--.-- ------.---
Car-O-Ite.:
Carman-Roberts Co., Inc ...
Cedaromn:
N-R-G Products Co ....---


q.J. No.
3309
1309
1308
1305


Liquor
No-Mo


C(resolis Compositus
Clifton Chemical Co_


Emeloid


Inc-s...


* -
------ -


Odor-X :
Real Exterminating Products
Co---- ----------- -------- -
T^'^ ^ C -..^ -.


N.J. No.
- 1299
- 1298


1302


-


E
I-


:








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

HlIIIIMIIil~lniIIi ii a i alllnlllMi
3 1262 08582 4828


0 ::i :*
x xx
^i:xx


S V


I