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:
AA00008549:00017

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text



N. J., I. F. 1312-1340


Issued November 1934


United


States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD


AND


DRUG ADMINISTRATION


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the insecticide act]
1312-1340


[Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture,


Washington,


D. C., November 5,


1934]


1312. Misbranding of Qua-Sul. U. S. v. 12 Gallon Cans and 26 Quart Cans
of Qua-SUN. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
destruction. (I. & F. no. 1532. S. no. 222.)
This case involved a shipment of Qua-Sul that was labeled with false and mis-
leading claims as to its effectiveness as a control for certain fungi and insects,
and as a plant stimulant.
On November 17, 1930, the United States attorney for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 12 gallon cans
and 26 quart cans of Qua-Sul at Philadelphia, Pa. It was alleged in the libel
that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January


29, 1930, by A. R. Gregory,


that it was a
Insecticide Act
The libel ch
statements on
Soil Treatment
solution of one


from San Francisco, Calif., to Philadelphia, Pa., and


nisbranded insecticide and fungicide within


of 1910.
arged that the
the can label,
For
gallon Qua-Sul


Beds and Hot Houses *
sionally with a weak solution


the meaning of the


article was misbranded in that the following
"Qua-Sul Mildew-Fungus-Peach Leaf Curl and
Certain Mildews, Rusts and Blights Spray with
to 100 to 200 gallons of water Flower
* As a soil sweetener and cleanser water occa-
of Qua-Sul (1 gallon to 250 gallons of water).


This treatment is recommended to increase verdure and depth of color. *
Soil Treatment Generally For certain fungus spores and insect eggs in the
soil, use a stronger solution. We recommend the application of one gallon
Qua-sul to 100 gallons of water ", were false and misleading, and by reason
of the said statements the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and
mislead the purchaser, since they represented that the article, when used as
directed, would be effective against all fungi, mildew, and peach leaf curl;
would be effective for all soil treatment; would be satisfactorily effective against
the more important mildews, rusts, and blights of plants; would in all cases
increase the verdure and depth of color of plants in flower beds and hothouses;
and would effectively control the insect eggs that are commonly found in the
soil; whereas the article, when used as directed, would not be effective against
all fungi, mildew, and peach leaf curl; would not be effective for all soil treat-
ments; would not be satisfactorily effective against the more important


mildews, rusts, and blights of plants; would not in all cases increase the verdure
and depth of color of plants in flower beds and hothouses; and would not effec-
+44ralr nan 4-mi 4-1h n oianf& nntwc. 4-h + n+ .aw nnrnrnrtvrnl 4Pjnnnl Sn 4-tin+n onl








186


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


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 Reade Manufacturing Co., a corporation of
Jersey City, N. J., alleging shipment by said company on or about August 22,
1931, from the State of New Jersey into the State of Pennsylvania, of a
quantity of Reade's Antiseptic Animal Soap which was a misbranded insecti-
cide 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 following statements appearing on the carton and can labels and in a
circular shipped with the article, (cartons) "Reade's Antiseptic Animal Soap"
(can labels) "Reade's Antiseptic Animal Soap. Try this antiseptic


soap as a head shampoo Used regularly, this soap keeps
and coat in a healthy condition, free from vermin *
also imparts a beautiful gloss to the coat. The antiseptic
micidal properties of this soap are helpful in preventing skin troubles
mange and eczema ", (circulars) "Reade's Antiseptic Animal Soap
Keeps skin, healthy. Makes coat soft and glossy. *
has been using and recommending this antiseptic soap to his clientele
years. Try it the next time you shampoo and you will ex
that delightful sensation which comes only with antiseptic cleanness.
to prevent skin troubles such as mange and eczema. Used regularly,
Antiseptic Animal Soap will keep your pet's skin in a *
condition. Leave lather on for several minutes to kill
vermin. For skin troubles ", were false and misleading, an
son of the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive
lead the purchaser, since the article, when used as directed, would


as an antiseptic and germicide; would
make their coats soft and glossy; would
mange and eczema; would not effectively
not be effective for all types and varieties
On May 3, 1933, a plea of guilty was
company, and the court imposed a fine of
M. L. WILson


the skin
* It
and ger-
such as
* *
* who
for many
:perience
* *
Reade's
healthy
* *
d by rea-
and mis-
not act


not keep animals' skins healthy and
not prevent all skin troubles such as
y treat all skin troubles; and would
of vermin.
entered on behalf of the defendant
$25.


Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1314. Adulteration and misbranding of Merax M. S. Mercury Cyanide
Solution and Merax Sterilizing Solution. U. S. v. Merax, Inc. Plea
of guilty. Fine, $60. (I. & F. no. 1610. Dom. nos. 22644, 32752.)
This case was based on interstate shipments of products which were fungi-


cides within the meaning of the
cury cyanide solution showed tha
it contained borax; it contained
mercury than declared; and the
sentations as to its effectiveness
izing solution showed that it c
label. Both products failed to


Insecticide Act of 1910.
Lt it was not a mercury
smaller proportions of
labels contained false
as a sterilizing agent.
contained less mercury


bear


on the


labels


ingredients present.
On July 27, 1933, the United States attorney for
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
an information against Merax, Inc., a corporation,


Analysis of the
cyanide solution,
mercury cyanide
and misleading i
Analysis of the s
than declared o0


statements


mer-
since
Sand
:epre-
teril-
a the
inert


the District of Oregon,
filed in the district court
Portland, Oreg., alleging


shipment by
Oregon into


tion,
QI-n4r


and
L fl#-


said company


the


on or
IX7^n cflhi-n


on or about February 28,


State of California,
about February 13,
rv^-f-Mr ., n uinni e-xi~


of a
1932,


quantity
from the


_^r -HT -^ -


1931, from


of Merax
State of
N1 ^ -*-


the State of


Sterilizing Solu-
Oregon into the


t4~~i.~t


L. ~t







1313-1340]


"Contains 2% Mercu
and by reason of the
and mislead the purc
alleged for the fourth'
label, "Mercury Cya
Dental Instruments
solution; put one pai
Merax may be used
To Sterilize: cutting
ters, urethral cathet
Sealers, brushes, etc.,
Would for boiling; th
which they are read'
impaired by the sol
aluminum instrument
they represented that
solution, and a germi
not a mercury cyani


NOTICES


iry ",
said
haser.
er rea
mide
Mera
t of


OF JUDGMENT


appearing on the labels, were
statements the articles were la
Misbranding of the mercury
son that the following state
Solution A Sterilizing Solut


187


false and misleading,
Lbeled so as to deceive
cyanide solution was
ents appearing on the
ion for Surgical and


x is a germicide. Direction
Merax into ten parts of water and mix


To make
thoroughly.


undiluted because it is non-irritating and non-corrosive.
instruments, cystoscopes, bougies, sounds, rubber cathe-
ers, rubber gloves, needles, syringes, dental handpieces,
first clean the instruments thoroughly the same as you
en immerse in the solution from one to five minutes, after
y for use. Cutting edges and articles of rubber are not
lution, diluted or undiluted. Do not sterilize


s in Merax
Sthe article
cide for sur
de solution


", were false, misleading, and deceptive, since
was a mercury cyanide solution, a sterilizing
gical and dental instruments; whereas it was
but was a solution of mercury cyanide and


borax, it was not a sterilizing solution, and was not a germicide for surgical
and dental instruments.
Misbranding of both products was alleged for the further reason that they
Consisted partially of inert substances, i. e., substances other than mercury
cyanide, that is to say, substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or miti-
gate fungi (bacteria), and the name and percentage of each of the inert sub-
stances or ingredients present in the articles were not stated plainly and
correctly on the bottle labels; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage
amount of the substances or ingredients of the articles having fungicidal
properties, and the total percentage of the inert ingredients stated plainly and
correctly on the labels.
On June 20, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company, and the court imposed a fine of $60.


M. L. WILSON, Action


7 Secretary of


AgricuJtwre.


1315. Adulteration and misbranding of Khylex. UI. S. v. 14 Cases of
Khylex. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruc-


tion. (I. & F. no. 1626. Sample no. 30363-A.)
This case involved a product intended for use as a
trained a smaller percentage of sodium hypochlorite, the
a larger proportion of inert ingredients than declared on
On May 22, 1933, the United States attorney for the
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
of the District of Columbia, holding a district court, a


fungicide, which con-
active ingredient, and
the label.
District of Columbia,
in the Supreme Court
libel praying seizure


and condemnation of 14 cases, each containing 24 bottles of Khylex, at Wash-
ington, D. C., alleging that the article had been sold on or about February 11,
19iS, by the Khylex Chemical Co., of Alexandria, Va., and charging adulteration
and misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that the state-
ments, "Active Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 5% Inert Ingredients, 95% ",
borne on the bottle label, represented that the standard and quality of the article
were such that it contained an active ingredient, sodium hypochlorite, in the pro-
portion of not less than 5 percent, and contained inert ingredients, i. e., sub-
stances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria) in the
proportion of not more than 95 percent, whereas the strength and purity of the







188


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


Misbranding of
America. Plea
37867-A.)


Pero-Fume. U.
of guilty. Fine,


The
(I. &


Perolin Company of
F. no. 1687. Sample Do.


This Case was based on an interstate shipment of an insecticide, the labeling
of which bore false and misleading claims as to its effectiveness in the control
of insects. The article was also represented to be nonpoisonous and harmless
to pets; whereas it contained mineral oil, which might have rendered its use
harmful to certain pets.
On March 20, 1934, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
trict court an information against the Perolin Co. of America, a corporation,
Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment by said company on or about August 11, 1933,
from the State of Illinois into the State of Virginia, of a quantity of Pero-
Fume, which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecti-
cide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in that
the statements on the label of the cans containing the article, "Pero-Fume
formulated for use in The Pero-Fumer, The Automatic Electric Insect Exter-
minator One ounce of Pero-Fume per 5000 cubic feet is sufficient to
kill practically all types of crawling insects if space is well closed. For flies,
moths, mosquitoes, etc., a smaller dose is satisfactory, Non-poisonous
and harmless to pets ", 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, was
an effective insecticide against all insects, would exterminate all insects, would
kill practically all types of crawling insects, and would be effective against
flies, moths, mosquitoes, etc., and that it was nonpoisonous and harmless to
pets; whereas the article, when used as directed, was not an effective insecticide
against all insects, would not exterminate any insect, would not kill practi-
cally all types of crawling insects, and would not be effective against flies,
moths, mosquitoes, etc., and the article was not nonpoisonous and was not
harmless to pets.
On July 10, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.


M. L. WILSON, Actin


g Secretary of


Arioulture.


Misbranding of Esko Septic Generator.
during Co. Plea of .guilty. Fine, $25
Sample no. 24040-A.)


U. S. v. The Esko Manufac-
and costs. (I. & F. no. 1631.


This case was based on a shipment of a product labeled with false and mis-
leading claims as to its effectiveness as a germicide.
On August 30, 1933, the United States attorney for the Northern District of


Ohi
court
land
Act
of I
was


), actii
t an i]
t, Ohio
of 191
llinois,
a mis


ig upon a report by
information against t
, alleging shipment
0, on or about Augu
of a quantity of an
branded fungicide w:


the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
he Esko Manufacturing Co., a corporation, Cleve-
by said company in violation of the Insecticide
st 31, 1932, from the State of Ohio into the State
article, known as Esko Septic Generator, which


within


It was alleged in the information
following statements borne on the
a scientifically prepared chemical c
maintain the toilet in a sanitary


from
> *


the germination and spread
'"a fJI *


the meaning
that the arti
carton label,
compound use
condition anm
bacteria dep


'U .* Si 'U fl .


of said act.
cle was misbranded in
"Germicide *
d to destroy disease g
d to avoid contagion
osited therein *


that the
Esko is
erms, to
resulting
* Direc-


I *


1316.


1317.


I








1313-1340]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


189


1318. Misbranding o
Moth Cake.
destruction.
This case involved a
effectiveness as a disi
On August 10, 193,
Tennessee, acting upo
district court a libel


f Ma-Tex


Moth


Default de
(I. & F. no. 16
product label
nfectant.
, the United S
n a report by
praying seizu


cree
44.
ed w


Cake.


U. S.


v. 395


Cakes


of Ma-Tex


of condemnation, forfeiture, and
Sample no. 41604-A.)
ith false and misleading claims as to its


states attorney for the Western District of
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
re and condemnation of 395 Ma-Tex Moth


Cakes at Memphis, Tenn., alleging that the article
state commerce on or about June 20, 1933, by the
Louis, Mo., and that it was a misbranded insecticih
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the libel that the article was m
ment" Disinfectant ", borne on the label, was false
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it was n
On March 31, 1934, no claimant having appeared
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and i
that the product be destroyed by the United States
M. L. WILsoN, Acting


had been shipped in inter-
Ma-Tex Sales Co., from St.
de and fungicide within the


isbranded in that
and misleading a
ot a disinfectant.
for the property,
t was ordered by
marshal.


Secretary of


the state-
nd tended

judgment
the court


Agriculture.


1319. Adulteration
Aaron H.
of guilty.
This case was bas
proportion of nicoti
clared on the label.
to its effectiveness
On November 2, 1


and misbranding of Tabako-Funmes Powder. UI. S. v.
Friedman (A. H. Friedman Tobacco Products). Plea
Sentence suspended. (I. & F. no. 1646. Sample no. 21362-A.)
ed on a shipment of an insecticide that contained a smaller
me and a greater proportion of inert ingredients than de-
The label also bore false and misleading representations as
against certain insects.
933. the United States attorney for the Eastern District of


New York, acting upon a report by th
district court an information against
Friedman Tobacco Products, Brooklyn,
ant in violation of the Insecticide Act
from the State of New York into the
Tabako-Fumes Powder which was an
within the meaning of said act.
It was alleged in the information tha


e Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
Aaron H. Friedman, trading as A. H.
N. Y., alleging shipment by said defend-
of 1910, on or about February 6, 1933,
State of New Jersey, of a quantity of
adulterated and misbranded insecticide


t the article


statements, "Active Ingredients-Nicotine not less
ents-not more than 95.93% ", borne on the can
standard and quality were such that it contained


was adulterated in that the
than 4.07%, Inert Ingredi-


label,
nicotine


not less than 4.07 percent, and contained inert ingredients,
do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, in the pi


than 95.93 percent; whereas the strength a
professed standard and quality under wh
much less than 4.07 percent of nicotine, E
much greater than 95.93 percent.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason
ents-Nicotine not less than 4.07%, Inert


Tabako-
Fly, etc
40(00 to
leading,
deceive
nicotine


Fumes Powder


nd purity of the
ich it was sold,


and inert


represented that its
e in a proportion of
i. e., substances that
7oportion of not more
article fell below the
in that it contained


ingredients in a


proportion


that the statements, "Active Ingredi-
Ingredients-Not more than 95.93%


* For the treatment of Black Fly


. a 3%-inch flowerpot filled with Tabako-Fumes i
6000 cubic feet of air space ", borne on the label,
and by reason of the said statements the article
and mislead the purchaser, since it contained less
and more than 95.93 percent of inert ingredients,


Thrips, Green


s sufficient for about
were false and mis-
was labeled so as to
than 4.07 percent of
and the article, when


r








190


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


the district court an information against the New
Medina, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company
from the State of New York into the State of India
Brand Process Copper Arsenic Dust and Medina
which were misbranded insecticides and fungicides
said act.


York
on or
na, of
Brand
within


Insecticide Co.,
about May 27,
quantities of M
Process Blue
the meaning o


Inc.,
1933,
edina
Dust,
>f the


It was alleged in the information that the articles were misbranded in that
the statements borne on the tags attached to the bags containing the articles,
(arsenic dust) "Copper Sulphate (as monohydrate) not less than 20.0%,
* Tnnrl- TnarnArnn+c, nfl4- ,nn,.n +Inon CM (1C rrnd1 fdintrt th 64


I. LI* r JLL
metallic) not less
hydrate) not less
per (as metallic)
reason of the sai


,rekt en IXJL s no toe Lan
than 7.0% ", and (Blue
than 25.0% Inert Ingredi
not less than 9.0% ",
d statements the articles


V 't I /U.
Dust) "Copper
ents not more th
were false and
were labeled ai


Sulphate (as mono-
an 75.0% Total Cop-
misleading, and by
d branded so as to


deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they contained total copper, as me-
tallie, in proportions less than 7 percent and 9 percent, respectively; they con-
tained copper sulphate as monohydrate in proportions less than 20 percent and


25 percent, respectively, and contained inert ingredients, i. e.,
do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi,
greater than 64 percent and 75 percent, respectively.
On May 8, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the
pany, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary o


substances that
in proportions


defendant cornm-


Agriculture:


1321. Adulteration and misbranding of Tobacco Powder and Double Duty
Tobacco Insecticide Dust. U. S. v. Friedman Tobacco Products
Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1666. Sample
nos. 37599-A, 37800-A.)


This case


was


based


use as insecticides, both
and a larger percentage


labeling of one
to its effectivene
On December
Pennsylvania, ac
district court an
tion. trading at
12, 1933, from t
quantity of Tobi
Pennsylvania in
Tobacco Insecti<
insecticides with
It was alleged


of the p
ss in the
22, 1933,
ting upo
inform
York, Pa
he Stat
acco Pow


to the
ide D
in the
in the


the statements, Nicot
attached to the sacks


us
us


on interstate


shipments of


products


intended for


of which contained a smaller percentage of nicotine
of inert ingredients than declared on the label. The
productss bore false and misleading representations as
control of certain insects.
the United States attorney for the Middle District of
n a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
tion against the Friedman Tobacco Products Corpora-
., alleging shipment by said company on or about July
e of Pennsylvania into the State of Maryland, of a
vder, and on or about May 26, 1933, from the State of
District of Columbia, of a quantity of Double Duty
t, which products were adulterated and misbranded


meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
information that both products were a
ine 1.00% Inert Ingredients 99.00% ",
containing the articles, represented th


nicotine in the proportion of not less t
i. e., substances that do not prevent, des
proportion of not more than 99 percent
the articles fell below the professed stand
sold, in that they contained less than 1
percent of inert ingredients.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason
Inert Ingredients 99.00% ". borne on the


:han 1 percent, and
troy, repel, or mitig;


dulterated in that
borne on the tags
at they contained
inert ingredients,
ate insects, in the


; whereas the strength and purity of
ard and quality under which they were
percent of nicotine and more than 99

a that the statements, Nicotine 1.00%
tars were false and misleading and by





NOTICES

NOTICES


1313-1340]


OF JUDGMENT


191


place Double Duty in small muslin sacks in pockets, or in various places in
closets, in close contact with clothing. Ants. Sprinkle liberally about roots
of plants and work into soil to a considerable depth, or use in liquid form
about roots of plants A liberal coating of Double Duty applied to soil


around roots and worked into it will not only destroy many f<
before they hatch Tobacco Insecticide Powders, on aa
native nicotine contents, are well and widely known and us
gardeners, farmers, and truckers in the control and destruction
soft-bodied sucking insects ", were false and misleading, and by
said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and m
chaser, in that they represented that the article, when used as
destroy red spiders, all thrips, all forms of plant lice and all cate:
kill all insects; would be effective against insects under all con
act as a preventive of moths; would be effective against ants;
many of the common forms of larvae attacking the roots of pla
destroy all kinds of soft-bodied sucking insects; whereas the
used as directed, would not be effective for the said purposes.
On January 18, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of
company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of


orms of larvae
account of their
ed by florists,
of all kinds of
reason of the
islead the pur-


directed,
pillars;
editions;
would d
nts, and
article,


would
would
would
estroy
would
when


the defendant

Agriculture.


1322. Misbranding of Sun Antiseptic.
of nolo contender to first co
third counts. Fine, $5. (I. &
This case was based on an interstate
fungicide within the meaning of the la
antiseptic. Examination showed that th


used as
the bott
On J
chusetts
district
Inc., Ro
7, 1932,
of a qu,
meaning
It wa
branded


of measu
the cont


contained
the second
sick-room
on the bo
ments the
the articl
not act a
Misbrand


directed


les con
inuary
, actin
court
slindal
from


, that i


tamed le
20, 1934
g upon
an infor
e, Mass.,


U. S. v. Sun C
unt; plea of
F. no. 1667. S
shipment of
w, and was
e article was


hliemical
guilty t
ample no.
a produce
intended
not an


Co., Inc.
to second
39786-A.)
t which v
for use a
antiseptic


t contained an undeclared inert ingredient, a:
Than the declared volume.
the United States attorney for the District of
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
ation in three counts against the Sun Chemi
alleging shipment by said company, on or about


State of Massachusetts


entity of Sun Antiseptic, which was
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


State of


New


Plea
and


vas a
is an
when
that


Ma ssa-
in the
cal Co.,
October


Hampshire,


a misbranded fungicide within


alleged in the first count of the information that the article was mis-
in that it was in package form and the contents were stated in terms
ire on the bottles, Contents 8 Fluid Ounces ", and the measure of


nts of the bottles was n
less than 8 fluid ounces
d count for the reason tha
use, Wounds, Bruises, So


t
I
-S
e
S
iii


ot plainly and
of the article.
it the statement
res, Douche 1%1


correctly


stated


since


Misbranding was alle
s, "Antiseptic *
oz. to qt. of Water ",


tle label, were false and misleading, and by reason of
article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the p
, when used in the dilution of 1% ounces to 1 quart o
an efficient antiseptic for wounds, bruises, sores, an


ng


was


alleged


ii


consisted partially of water,
not prevent, destroy, repel,
percentage amount of the
correctly, or at all, on the


percentage


amounts


eac


the said
purchaser
f water,
d as a d


they


ged in
SFor
borne
state-
, since
would
ouche.


Sthe third count for the reason that the article
an inert ingredient, namely, a substance that does


or mitiga
said inert
label; no
;h substan


te fungi (bacteria), and
substance were not stat
r, in lieu thereof, were
ce or ingredient of the


the name and
:ed plainly and
the names and
article having


ss


e







192


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


trict court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 103 jars of Musbro
Skin Ointment at Englewood, N. J., alleging that the article had been shipped
in interstate commerce, on or about May 3, 1933, by the Standard Veterinary
Products Co., from New York, N. Y., and that it was a misbranded insecticide


within
It w
ment,
on the
ment t
the ar
treat
term


the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
'as alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the state-
"For Mange and allied skin diseases in dogs and cats ", borne
Sjar label, was false and misleading, and by reason of the said state-
ihe article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since
ticle, when used and applied as directed, would not be effective as a


ent f
allie


violation


or all varieties of mange


and for the


d skin diseases ", that affect dogs and
of the Food and Drugs Act, reported


skin diseases indicated by the


cats. The libel also charged
in Notice of Judgment no.


22363, published under that act.
On July 20, 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.


1324.


Misbranding of oil emulsion and lime sulphur solution.
H. A. DuBois & Sons, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $5. (I.
1648. Sample nDos. 34272-A, 34273-A.)


U. S. v.
&F. no.


This case was based on interstate shipment of prod
insecticides and fungicides and which failed to bear a
ment of the inert ingredients.
On September 27, 1933, the United States attorney
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of
district court an information against H. A. DuBois &
alleging shipment by said company on or about March
of Illinois into the State of Tennessee, of two drums
drum of lime sulphur solution, which were misbrande
cides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of
unlabeled.
It was alleged in the information that the articles
they consisted partially of an inert substance, water, i.


not prevent, destroy, repel, or
percentage amount of the said
not stated plainly and correctly
nor, in lieu thereof, were the n
substance or ingredient of the
erties, and the total percentage
stated plainly and correctly, or
drums.
On October 9, 1933, a plea of
company, and the court imposed


ucts intended for use as
label containing a state-

for the Eastern District
Agriculture, filed in the
SSons, Inc., Gobden, Ill.,
17, 1933, from the State
of oil emulsion and one
d insecticides and fungi-
1910. The drums were


were misbranded in that
e., a substance that does


mitigate insects or fungi, and the name and
inert substance so present in the articles were


)r at
e an
tidcle
the
all,


all, on any label affixed
d percentage amount of
having insecticidal or f
inert substance so present
on any label, borne on o


guilty was entered on
a fine of $5.


M. L.


to the d
each and
bungicidal
kt in the
r affixed


Lrums;
every
prop-
article
to the


behalf of the defendant


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1325.


Adulteration and misbranding of cresol compound solution. U. S.
v. 12 Drums of Cresol Compound Solution. Consent decree pro-
viding for release of product under bond for relabeling. (I. & F.
no. 1709. Sample no. 61076-A.)


This case
the meaning


involved a shipment of cresol compound solution,


g of


the Insecticide 2


a fungicide within


&ct of 1910, which failed to conform to the
T -^ a atJ, *-1 a


I







1313-1340]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


193


mislead purchasers. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the
article consisted partially of inert ingredients, water and glycerin, and did not
have the name and percentage amount of each inert ingredient plainly and cor-
rectly stated on the label; nor, in lieu thereof, did the label bear a statement
of the name and percentage of ingredients having fungicidal properties and the
total percentage of the inert ingredients.
A claim for the property was entered by James Good, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.


On Jun
having
entered
payment
that it 1


e 28, 1934,
consented
providing
.t of costs
be relabele


the claimant having admitted
to the entry of a decree o
that the product might be
and the execution of a bond
1 under the supervision of thi


the allegations of the libel and
f condemnation, judgment was
delivered to the claimant upon
in the sum of $600, conditioned
s Department.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1326. Misbranding of E-Z-Do Mothfree clothes cab
E-Z-Do Mothfree Clothes Box No. 182 and 9 E
Chest No. 183. Consent decree of condemn
Products released under bond to be relabele
Sample nos. 67627-A, 67628-A.)
The products in this case consisted of two types o
intended for storing clothes, each cabinet enclosing a tube
cide. Examination showed that the cabinets would not
tection claimed.


On March 28, 1934, the United State
acting upon a report by the Secretary
a libel praying seizure and condemn
No. 182 and 9 E-Z-Do Senior Utility
that the articles had been shipped in


February
Cabinet C
a misbran
It was
statement
"E-Z-Do
Number 1


inets. U. S. v. 297
-Z-Do Senior Utility
tion and forfeiture.
d. (I. & F. no. 1692.

f cardboard cabinets
containing an insecti-
afford the moth pro-


?s attorney for the District of
Sof Agriculture, filed in the d
tion of 297 E-Z-Do Mothfree
Chest No. 183 at Newark, N.
interstate commerce, in part


16, 1934, and in part on or about March 5, 1934, by
corporation, from New York, N. Y., and charging that
ded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide
alleged in the libel that the articles were misbran
on the labels, Mothfree Clothes Cabinet", and
Mothfree Box No. 182 ", contained in a circular en
82, were false and misleading, and by reason of the


Sthe
the
Act
ded


New Jersey,
district court
Clothes Box
J., alleging
on or about
Decorative
article was
of 1910.
in that the


the statement
closed with the
said statements


the articles were labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that
they represented that the articles would protect clothes from or against injury
by moths, whereas the articles would not protect clothes from or against
injury by moths.
On May 15, 1934, the Decorative Cabinet Corporation, claimant, having ad-
mitted the allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree,
judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered by the court that
the products be released to the claimant upon payment of costs and the execu-
tion of a bond in the sum of $1,000, conditioned that the present labels b0
removed and new ones affixed that complied with the law.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1327. Misb
tor
(I.
This case
with false
septic, and
The article


randing of Dairmol.


U. S. v. Harry C. Campbell (Dairy Labora-


ies). Plea of nolo contender. Judgm4
& F. no. 1671. Sample no. 41657-A.)
was based on an interstate shipment of a
and misleading representations as to its
as a control of certain insect pests and fur
contained an inert ingredient that was


nt of guilty.


Fine, $50.


product that was labeled
effectiveness as an anti-
igous diseases of animals.
not declared as required







194


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


scessed Wounds
Sights for Inj
* Care
therefore, non-i
deodorizes and
"Lice and fleas
able and help
forms of *
said statements
chaser, in that t
used in 5 perce
conditions spec:
dilute solutions
use, would be a


: Syringe with 5-10% solution. Antiseptic Preparing
action: Wash area with diluted Dairmol, rubbing thoroughly
of Hands and Instruments: Dairmol is non-caustic and is
rritating to the hands. A dilute solution of Dairmol cleanses,
retains the cutting edge of instruments, causing no corrosion ",
on small animals Dairmol being particularly desir-


ul ir
*
the
:hey
nt,
ified
, as


Removing pests Skin Diseases
mange ", were false and misleading, and
article was labeled so as to deceive and
represented that the article was an effective
10 percent, and 20 percent solutions, for
on the label; that it would be an effect
specified on the label; that the article,


in effective c


be effective removing all
be effective in removing all


mange,
where
specific
10, and
control
all pest
term,
alleged
water, .


indic
s the
d on
20 i


control for lice an
pests; and would


d fleas


, including many
by reason of the
mislead the pur-
e antiseptic when
the diseases and
ive antiseptic in
without repeated


on small animals


Sbe effective for all


ated by the term Skin Diseases, including many
article would not be an effective antiseptic in d


the label; i
percent solul


for lice and flea:
:s; and would not
' Skin Diseases,
for the further
i. e., a substance


forms
lilute


would


varieties of
of mange ";
solutions as


t would not be an effective antiseptic, when used in 5,
tions, as directed on the label; it was not an effective
s on small animals; would not be effective in removing
t be effective for all varieties of mange indicated by the
including many forms of mange." Misbranding was
reason that the article contained an inert ingredient,
that does not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects


or fungi, and the name and percentage amount of the said inert
present therein were not stated plainly and correctly on the label
jacket or to the cans containing the article; nor, in lieu thereof, v
and percentage amount of every substance or ingredient of the i
insecticidal or fungicidal properties, and the total percentage of
stance present, stated plainly and correctly on the label.
The information also charged a violation of the Food and Drugs
in Notices of Judgment published under that act. On March
defendant pleaded nolo contender for the Dairy Laboratories.
guilty was entered and a fine of $50 was imposed for violation of
M. L. WILSON. Actina Secretary of


- S., U


ingredient so
affixed to the
vere the name
article having
the inert sub-

Act, reported
9, 1934, the
Judgment of
both acts.
Agriculture.


28. Misbranding of Puro-Kake. U. S. v. 96 Cartons of Puro-Kake.
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I.
& F. no. 1674. Sample no. 49680-A.)
This case involved a product that was labeled with false and misleading claims


as to its effectiveness in the control o:
deodorizing agent.
On December 4, 1933, the United Stat
Tennessee, acting upon a report by the
district court a libel praying seizure an
Kake at Memphis, Tenn., alleging that ti
commerce, on or about June 7, 1933, by
from Madison, Wis., and charging mist
Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the libel that the ar
ments on the carton, "Keeps Food in
Bacteria, Prevents Mixing of Food Fla
tended to deceive and mislead the purch


bacteria,


es attorney fo
SSecretary ol
d condemnati
ae article had
r the Johnson
'randing in vi


as an air purifier


r the Western District of
SAgriculture, filed in the
on of 96 cartons of Puro-
been shipped in interstate
Puro-Kake Products Co.,
.olation of the Insecticide


was misbranded in that the state-
ified Air, Controls Odors, Retards
", were false and misleading and
since the article would not purify


i


13


'







1313-1340]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


195


shipment by said company on or abc
fornia into the State of Oregon, of a
ages of Ajel Cedarizer, which was a
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the information


the statements, "Ajel
Away ", borne on the
Cedarizer. Every Clo
frill efficiency Facts


Ceda
label
set a
about


ut April 26, 1932, from the State of Cali-
number of small packages and large pack-
misbranded insecticide within the meaning


that the article


rizer. Every Closet
of the small package
Cedar Chest. Keeps
the Ajel Cedarizer


A. Cei
s, ar
Mot]
Ceda


was


misbranded


in that


dar Chest, Keeps Moths
id the statements, "Ajel
hs Away Because of its
r is an active moth re-


pellant. Cedar emits a vapor which moths cannot breathe, hence
avoid cedarladen air and thus do not lay their eggs in a
area. Cedar vapor is extremely effective without the ol
usually associated with most moth repellants. Cedar fumes are
human beings, but decidedly unfriendly to moths Aj
Every Closet A Cedar Chest Keeps Moths away because of its
tivity", borne on the label of the large packages, were false and
and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled so a
and mislead the purchaser, in that they represented that the a
used as directed, would keep moths away and would prevent moths
their eggs on garments; whereas the article, when used as directed
keep moths away and would not prevent moths from laying t


these insects
cedarladen
offensive odor
pleasant to
el Cedarizer
constant ac-
Smisleading,
is to deceive
article, when
from laying
d, would not
ieir eggs on


garments.
On March 14, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company, and the court imposed a fine of $10.
M. L. WILSON. Actina Secretary of Aariculture.


I


1330. Misbranding of Peerless Disinfi
(Peerless Chemical Co.). Plea
1676. Sample nos. 40963-A, 40964-
This case was based on an interstate
unlabeled carboys and labeled jugs. The
was represented to be an insecticide an
law that the inert ingredients present in
rectly on the label was not complied wit
that the article was nonpoisonous, where
were further objectionable since they co:
effectiveness of the article as a steriliz


control for certain insects. The
gallon, the labeled volume.
On March 19. 1934, the United
Iowa, acting upon a report by the
court an information against J.
Chemical Co.. Des Moines, Iowa,


eetant. U.
Sof guilty.
A.)


S. v. J. Wayne
Fine, $21. (I.


Perkins
& F. no.


shipment of Peerless Disinfectant in
former was a fungicide and the latter
d fungicide. The requirement of the
the article be stated plainly and cor-
h. The label on the jugs represented
eas it was poisonous. The jug labels
stained unwarranted claims as to the
er, disinfectant, bactericide, and as a


sample jug


examined


contained


than


States attorney for the Southern District of
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
Wayne Perkins, trading as the Peerless
alleging shipment by said defendant, on or


about April 28, 1933, from the State of Iowa into thi
number of carboys and jugs of Peerless Disinfectant,
violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the information that the article
was a fungicide and that the article contained in the j
fungicide and that the product in both containers was
sisted partially of inert substances, i. e., substances
chlorite, that is to say, substances that do not prevent,
fungi (bacteria), and the name and percentage amo
stances present in the article were not stated plainly


e State of Minnesota, of a
which was misbranded in


contained in ti
ugs was an insec
misbranded in t
other than sod
destroy, repel, o
unt of the said
and correctly on


ie carboys
ticide and
hat it con-
ium hypo-
)r mitigate
inert sub-
any label








196


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


cans, pai
it was a
disinfect
flanks;
appear;
that the
when us
quantity
The ii
reported
25, 1934,
tion and
violation


~is~


and strainers; would disinfect when applied by sprinkling and that


n effective disinfectant; would keep the a
drains; would disinfect animals; would
would disinfect incubators and brooders;
would prevent the breeding of flies and
net contents of each of the jugs was 1 g
ed as directed, would not be effective for
of the contents of the jugs was not 1 gall(
formation also charged a violation of
in Notice of Judgment no. 22368, published
the defendant entered a plea of guilty to
the court imposed a sentence of $21 on


of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


ir sweet and fresh; w<
disinfect cows' udders
would cause flies to
certain other insects,
gallon; whereas the art
the said purposes, and
n.
the Food and Drugs
d under that act. On
all counts of the inform
the three counts chart


would
and
dis-
and
icle,
the


Act,
May
ma-
ging


M. L.


WILSON,


Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


3331.


31isbranding
Olena, Inc.
39643-A.)


of G.
Plea


& O. Moth
of guilty.


Deodorant
Fine, $50.


Egg.
I. &F.


S. v.
1677.


Gonlard &
Sample no.


This ca
false and
other inse
sented to
a poison.
On May
acting upj


se was based on a shipment of a product, the labels of which bore
.misleading claims as to its effectiveness in the control of moths and
cts, and as a deodorant and air purifier. The article was also repre-
be positively safe in every way to human life, whereas it contained

10, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,
)n a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court


an information
alleging shipme
of New Jersey
Deodorant Egg,
Insecticide Act


It
the
* *
side
life
and


again
nt by
into t
wliic
of 19


was alleged
statements,
Save yo
camp toilets
* G
healthy vapor


odor. I
tilation,
camp o]
* *


on the
of the
purcha
article
moths
toilets


valuable in
decayed and
rL outside ca
Invaluat


artons con


said state
iser, since i
, when used
in upholster
Sit was not


a poison, namely,


nst
St
:he
1h
10.


t Goulard & Olena, Inc., trading at Jersey City, N. J.,
aid company on or about March 11, 1933, from the State
State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of G. & O. Moth
was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the
*


in the information that the article
" Creates healthy refreshing atmos
ur Upholstery *
they repel insects ", Positively sa
& O Moth Deodorant Eggs liberate
)r that instantly corrects a stale, 1


e was
I"
sphere
Hung
fe in e
a most
inpleas


bath, sickroom, kitchen, etc. Tobacco,
animal odors quickly eliminated *
mp toilets they destroy fou


e for eliminating any kind of


training the article, were false
ents the article was labeled so
t would not create a health
as directed, would not act as
y, and would not repel insects
positively safe in every way
paradichlorobenzene: and it


a

y,


vapor and would not eliminate or destroy unpleasa
On June 5, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered
company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
Ml. L. WILSON, Acting


misbranded in that
', "Destroys moths
in the camp or out-
very way to human
pleasing refreshing
ant and unsanitary


cooking, poor ven-
* Hung in the
odors completely


an unpleasant odor ", borne
d misleading, and by reason
Sto deceive and mislead the
refreshing atmosphere; the
effective insecticide against
camps and in outside camp
human life, but did contain
uld not liberate a healthful
nt or foul odors.
on behalf of the defendant


Secretary of


Agricutture.


-- jr -r S ... a & 1 --'.a U..


-


-- -. a


S c.r n~ **0 nsu~. ... 2kw S C 1W fl I-U OW *t fl SO U~' U r n a It S U.tin EDna OO 'a


'- net a


>I







1313-1340]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


197


It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in that
the statements on the bottle label, "6 FI. Ozs. When garments are
once moth-proofed they remain so indefinitely", 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 bottles contained less than 6 fluid ounces,
namely, an average of 5.67 ounces, and the article, when used as directed,


would
further
water,
mitiga
stance
bottle
each a
erties,
stated


not moth-proof


articles


indefinitely.


Misbranding


alleged for


r reason that the article consisted partially of an inert
that is to say, a substance that does not prevent, destroy
te insects, and the name and percentage amount of the said
present therein were not stated plainly and correctly, or at
label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage
nd every substance or ingredient of the article having insect
and the total percentage of the inert substance present in


plainly and correctly on the bottle label.


On May 14, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of
company, and the court imposed a fine a $100.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of


ingredient,
, repel, or
inert sub-
all, on the
amount of
cidal prop-
the article,


the defendant

Agriculture.


1333. Adulteration and misbranding of Mexogen. UI. S. v. Rose Manufac-
turing Co. Plea of nolo contender. Judgment of guilty. Sen-
tence suspended. (I. & F. no. 1680. Sample nos. 10154-A, 43321-A.)
This case was based on interstate shipments of an insecticide, known as
Mexogen, that contained an inert ingredient, water, in excess of the amount
declared on the label; it contained inert ingredients other than water; and the
cans contained less than 1 quart, the declared volume.
On March 9, 1934, 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 Rose Manufacturing Co., a corpora-
tion, Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipment by said company, on or about March 2,
1932, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of Connecticut, and on or
about June 12, 1933, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of New
York, of quantities of Mexogen, which was an adulterated and misbranded
insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910,
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that the
statements on the can label, "Inert Ingredient-Water: 15% ", represented
that the standard and quality of the article were such that it contained an
inert ingredient, water, in the proportion of not more than 15 percent; whereas
the strength and purity of the article fell below the professed standard and
quality under which it was sold, in that it contained water in a proportion much


greater than 15 percent.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason
ent-Water: 15% and "Contents-One
false and misleading, and by reason of
labeled and branded so as to deceive and
represented that the article contained no
it contained water only, as an inert ingre
quart of the article; whereas it contained


than 15 per
contain othe:
pyrethrum e


that the statements, "Inert Ingredi-
Quart ", borne on the can label, were
the said statements the article was


Mislead t
more than
dient; and
Water in


cent; it did not contain water only
r inert ingredients, alcohol, acetone,
extract; and the cans contained less


as a
and
than


he purchaser, in


that they


15 percent of water; that
that the cans contained 1
t proportion much greater
i inert ingredient, but did
:he inactive portion of the
1 quart of the article.


On March 9, 1934, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contender, w
adjudged guilty, and the court ordered that sentence be suspended.


as








198


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I. F.


the State of
known as 0
insecticide
It was all
statements,
attached to


contained
and, when
moths out
50 percent
gredients,
and would
On June


New
Sdora
within
eged i
"Activ
the


gredients, i. e.
the proportion
i. e., substance
proportion of
the article fel
sold, in that i
percent, and
50 percent.
Misbranding
gredients 50%
this scientific


I,
L

n
1
t
co


York into the State of New Jersey, of a quantity o
Cedarized Closet, which was an adulterated and
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
n the information that the article was adulterated
'e Ingredients 50%, Inert Ingredients 50% ", borne
closets, represented that the article contained


50 percent of active ingredients, and 50 percent of
used as directed, would kill moths and moth eggs


1


ing Secretary of


i


rf a product
misbranded

in that the
on the label
active in-


substances that prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, in
of not less than 50 percent, and contained inert ingredients,
that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, in the
ot more than 50 percent; whereas the strength and purity of
below the professed standard and quality under which it was
contained active ingredients in a proportion much less than 50


inert


ingredients


a proportion


much


greater


* was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Active In-
, Inert Ingredients 50% ", "The tested ingredients contained in
patented cedarizer will absolutely kill all moths and moth eggs


construction of
e false and mis-
labeled so as to
that the article
nert ingredients,
and would keep


under all
of active
and, when
not keep
18, 1934,


conditions; whereas the article contained muc
ingredients, and much more than 50 percent
i used as directed, would not kill moths and
moths out under all conditions.
a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of th


company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
M. L. WULSON, Acting Secretary of


1335. Misbranding of Moth Pads. U. S. v. 45 Doz
decree of forfeiture and destruction. (I.
41261-A.)
Examination of the product involved in this case s
afford the moth protection claimed.
On March 22, 1934, the United States attorney for


Wisconsin, acting
district court a lib
at La Crosse, Wis.,
merce on or about
from Chicago, Ill.,
of the Insecticide
It was alleged in
ing statements on
the household. R
ately ", were false
the article was not
On May 1, 1934,
forfeiture was ent
destroyed by the 1


upon a report by
el praying seizure
alleging that the
April 26, 1933, by


and
Act
i the
the
emo
and


Sa moth repellent.
no claimant having appeared
ered and it was ordered by
UJnited States marshal.
M. L. WILSON, Act


en Mot
& F. no.


showed

the


h less than
of inert in-
moth eggs

e defendant


Agriculture.


h Pads. Default
. 1688. Sample no.
that it would not


Western District of


stained


than


if present when garments are stored. While the mothproof
this chest will keep moths out ", borne on the said label, wer
leading, and by reason of the said statements the article was
deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they represented


the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
and condemnation of 45 dozen Moth Pads
article had been shipped in interstate corn-
the Royal Manufacturing Co. of Duquesne,


that it was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning
of 1910.
e libel that the article was misbranded in that the follow-
label, "Moth Pad a Moth repellant for use in
ve the wrapper and moth pad starts to work immedi-
Smisleading and deceived and misled the purchaser, since


for the property, judgment of
the court that the product be


Agriculture.








1313-1340]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


199


Marvel Bacteriacide Powder Sodium Hypochlorite, 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 on the can label, "Marvel Bacteriacide Powder Sodium Hypo-


chlorite Absolutely
and by reason of the said sta
and mislead the purchaser, sil
absolutely safe to the user, in
alleged that the following st
leading and tended to deceive
ful in four gallons of water
if the fowls are allowed to dr
utensils, pans, bottles, crocks a
with are rendered sterile *
25 gallons of water makes a
15 seconds to two minutes f
used the solution for killing
barn, milk house and other


when used as directed,
not sterilize dairy utensi
barns, milk houses and
as an effective disinfect
for the further reason
Ingredients Chlorine 5S
salt, etc. not over 4% ",
tended to deceive and n
sented that the active


would


Safe to
tements


nce
tha
aten
and
will
ink
mnd
*


solu
*ull
the
bull


it was n
t it was
ients on
mislead
act as a
no other
cans. Al
* Four
tion that
contact
bacteria


dings


User ", were false and misleading,
article was labeled so as to deceive
ot sodium hypochlorite and was not
poisonous. The information further
the can label were false and mis-
the purchaser: "One level teaspoon-
I bacteriacide and prevent infection
water. It sterilizes milk


]

I


l utensils
Ounces o
is recom
exposure
spray or


around


not prevent


infection]


ils, would not kill all bacteria
other buildings around the
ant in the dilution specified.


that
%, So
borne
aislea(
ingre4


that milk comes in contact
f this powder, mixed with
mended for a kill in from
* After you have
scrub out the stables and
dairy", since the article,
n from all sources, would
, would not disinfect stalls,
dairy, and would not act
Misbranding was alleged


the statements, "Guaranteed-Active Sterilizing
dium Phosphate (Alkaline) 89%, Inert Matter,
on the can label, were false and misleading and
d the purchaser, since the said statements repre-
dients of the article were chlorine and sodium


phosphate (alkaline), that the said chlorine and sodium
sterilize, and that the article would contain not more than .
ingredients; whereas it did not consist of chlorine and sodil
did consist of calcium hypochlorite and sodium phosphate, the
would not sterilize, and the article contained more than 4
ingredients, namely, 6.02 percent.
The information also charged a violation of the Caustic Po
in Notice of Judgment no. 25 and published under that act.
a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf of the defend
the court imposed a fine of $10 for both violations.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary


phosphate would
i percent of inert
am phosphate but
active ingredients
percent of inert

ison Act, reported
On July 2, 1934,
ant company, and


of


Agriculture.


*


1337. Adulteration and misbranding of Niagara Kolo Nicotine Dust. U. S.
v. 200 Pounds of Adulterated and Misbranded Insecticide. Default
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. no.
1690. Sample no. 60385-A.)
This case involved an insecticide that contained less nicotine, less sulphur,
and a larger proportion of inert ingredients than declared on the label.
On March 24, 1964, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 200 pounds of Niagara Kolo Nico-
tine Dust at Portland, Oreg., alleging that the. article had been shipped in
interstate commerce on or about March 6, 1933, by the Niagara Sprayer &
Chemical Co., Inc., from San Francisco, Calif., and that it was an adulterated
and misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that its strength
^. k t -f i t A.** I* -. A. .. ,** i


*







200


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


1338. Adulteration and misbranding
U. S. v. All-Nu Products Co.
no. 1695. Sample no. 55506-A.)


of
Plea


All-Nu Antiseptic Disinfectant.
of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F.


This case was based on an interstate shipment of a fungicide that contained
a larger proportion of the inert ingredient, water, than declared on the label.
On May 11, 1934, 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 All-Nu Products Co., a corporation trading at Cam-
den, N. Js, alleging shipment by said company, on or about August 28, 1933,
from the State of New Jersey into the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity
of All-Nu Antiseptic Disinfectant 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, Inert Matter 10% Water ", borne on the bottle label, repre-
sented that its standard and quality were such that it consisted of water in


the proportion of not more
of the article fell below the
sold, since it contained not 14
Misbranding was alleged
10% Water ", borne on the
the said statement the arti
purchaser, since it contained
On May 14, 1934, a plea


than 10 percent; whereas the strength
professed standard and quality under
ess than 16.2 percent of water.
for the reason that the statement "
label, was false and misleading, and
cle was labeled so as to deceive and
more than 10 percent of water.
of guilty was entered on behalf of t


company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of


h and purity
which it was

Inert Matter
by reason of
mislead the

he defendant

agriculture .


1339. Misbranding of Savol Antiseptic. UI. S. v. 23 Bottles of Savol Anti-
septic. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruc-
tion. (I. & F. no. 1704. Sample no. 42571-A.)


This case involved a product,
representations as to its effective
bactericide, and germicide, and
contained inert ingredients that
On May 7, 1934, the United
Indiana, acting upon a report
district court a libel praying se


the labels of which bore false and misleading
eness as an antiseptic, disinfectant, deodorant,


as a control for
were not declared
States attorney f
by the Secretary
izure and condemn


Antiseptic at Huntingburg, Ind., alleging that the
interstate commerce on or about March 13, 1934,


certain insects. The article
as required by law.
or the Southern District of
of Agriculture, filed in the
nation of 23 bottles of Savol
article had been shipped in
by the Savol Chemical Co.,


from Mercer, Pa., and charging misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act
of 1910.
It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the fol-


lowing statement
with the article,
the purchaser,


Savol
Savol
cupbo
with
etc.",
ideal


consisting


is an
yards, si
diluted
(circul
antisep


it has three


exc
nks
Sav
ar)
tic,
tim


ts on the bottle and carton labels, and in a circ
were false and misleading and tended to deceive
(bottle) "Directions: Unless otherwise desired,
of one teaspoonful to a pint of very hot water '
ellent disinfectant and deodorant in the sick r


Close
ol ", (
" Sav
for it
es as


ts etc.", (circular) "
carton) Savol *
ol The ide
quickly destroys all
much germ-destroyir


Poultry house,
* Destroys
al antiseptic
microbes or di
ig power as ca


Wash dogs with the same strength to free them from vermin, etc. Cupboards
that are infested with vermin can be freed from insects by washing


ular
and
use
*
'oom


shipped
mislead
diluted
Diluted
and in


s should be sprinkled
Bed-bugs,
* Savol is an
sease germs *
irbolic acid, *


,







1313-1340]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


201


label; nor, in lieu thereof, did the label bear a statement of
percentage amount of each and every ingredient having insect
cidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert ingredient.
charged violations of the Food and Drugs Act.
On July 9, 1964, no claimant having appeared for the property
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by
the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of


the name and
cidal or fungi-
The libel also


y, judgment of
the court that

Agriculture.


1340. Adulteration of Paris green. U. S. v.
Two 50-Pound Drums of Lacco Brand
of condemnation and destruction.
29589-A.)


Two
Paris
(I. &


100-Pound Drums and
Green. Default decree
F. no. 1708. Sample no.


This case involved a shipment of Paris green that contained water-soluble
arsenious oxide in excess of the amount provided by law, the sample examined
having been found to contain 9.92 percent of water-soluble arsenious oxide,
whereas the law provides that Paris green shall contain arsenic in water-
soluble form equivalent to not more than 3.5 percent of arsenious oxide.
On May 22, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a
libel praying seizure and condemnation of two 100-pound drums and two 50-
pound drums of Paris green at Phoenix, Ariz., alleging that the article had been
shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 7, 1933, by the Los Angeles
Chemical Co., from Los Angeles, Calif., and that it was adulterated in violation
of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The article was labeled in part: "Lacco Brand
Paris Green Manufactured by Los Angeles Chemical Company, Los Angeles,
California."
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that it con-
tained arsenic in water-soluble form equivalent to more than 3/ percent of
arsenious oxide.
On June 25, 1934, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment
of condemnation 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.

























INDEX


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


1312-1340


Ajel C

All-Nu


Moth
Cresol


edarizer:


Good,


Dairmol:
Ca
Da
Double
Dust:


Esko
E-Z-D<


182:


Seni


Lmpbell,
liry La
Duty


Friedman


Set


Tobacco
Tobacco


Clothes


solution:


Insecticide
Products


Corporation ---------
tic Generator:


Esko


Decorative Cabinet Corp.....
or Utility Chest No. 183:


Decorative


Cabinet


Co --
Box No.


Corpo-


ration .-- _- -.--.. --_


G. & O. Moth Deodorant Egg:
Goulard & Olena, Inc.-


Kb ylex:
Lime si
I


ilphur
)uBois


H. A.,


-----
- -


& Sons. Inc_-


Marvel Bacteriacide Powder Sodium
Hypochlorite:


Ma-Tex
Medina


Marvel Products Co.,
Moth Cake:
Ma-Tex Sales Co_-.


Brand


Process


Blue


Insecticide


Inca--
- C ---- -


Dust:


Inc .........- -- -- -- _
Copper Arsenic Dust:
New lYork Insecticide Co.,.


Merax


Inc .. -... .


N. J. no.


Ajel Manufacturing Co..---
Lichtig, B., & Son, Inc----...--
Antiseptic Disinfectant:
All-Nu Products Co-...----


Products


Co --- ---


solution:


Inca ---------


1329
1329
1338
1332


-1325
1327
1327


1321
1317


1326

1326
1331
1315
1324


1336
1318


1320

1320

1314


d


N. J.


Merax-Continued.
Sterilizing Solution


Merax,
Mexogen:


Moth

Musbroc


Rose
Pads:


I


Standar
ucts


Co --


Co. of


Prod-


Co---- ----- -


Niagara Kolo Nicotine Dust:
Niagara Sprayer & Chem-
ical Co., Inc .....--


Odora


Cedarized


Closets


Odora Co., Inc.......-.. -
Oil emulsion:


Dubois, H.


green:


Paris g
L
Peerless


Perkins,
Pero-Fume:


s Angeles C
Disinfectant:


., & Sons, Inc_


chemical


---- -


W --


Perolin Company of America
Puro-Kake


Johnson


---- --------------- -


Qua-Sul:


Reade'
Savol


SGregory, A. R- ----.. .... .
s Antiseptic Animal Soap:
Reade Manufacturing Co_.._
Antiseptic


Savol


Chemical


Sun Antiseptic:
Sun Chemical


Tabako-Fumes


Tobacco


Powder:


Friedman, A.
Friedman, A


Products .------------
Powder:


Friedman


Tobacco


Corporation -- -


1314
1333


1335


1323

1337
1334
1324
1340
1330
1330
1316

1328
1312
1313
1339
1322
1319


Products


Spray:
AI1-Nu ]


compound


James,


Inc ....-----
Manufacturing


H. C----- -----
boratories- -- -


Royal Manufacturing
Duquesne ....
SSkin Ointment:


Mothfree


Manufacturing


Veterinary


hylex Chemical


Peerless Chemical Co-.


Puro-Kake Products


York


Solution:
Merax,


M. S. Mercury Cyanide


Inc
S-Tobacco-
Tobacco


H--


*o0


I








































:*


-*
'

'





:*































*

































































i









































































































































































*





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
111t1 1 iI III I I MI U IHII I 6 I8 I
3 1262 08582 4836