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:
AA00008549:00018

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text




N. J., I. F. 1341-1356


Issued January


1935


United


States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD


AND


DRUG


ADMINISTRATION


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]

1341-1356


[Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture,


Washington, D.


1341. Adulteration and misbranding of De-Germ.
eal Products Co. Plea of guilty. Fine,
Sample no. 27275-A.)


Ti's.
*200.


C., January 12, 1935]
v. Century Chemi-
(I. & F. no. 1629.


This case was based on a shipment of an insecticide and fungicide that con-


tained smaller proportions of
and that failed to declare the
false and misleading claims
and disinfecting properties, a
On July 1, 1933, the United
gan, acting upon a report by
court an information against


the active ingredients than declared of
inert ingredient present. The labeling
regarding its purifying, deodorizing,
nd as to its effectiveness in the control
States attorney for the Eastern Distrih
the Secretary of Agriculture. filed in
the Century Chemical Products Co.,


tion, Detroit, Mich., alleging shipment by said company
1932, from the State of Michigan into the State of Pe
of De-Germ which was an adulterated and misbranded
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the information that the article w
strength and purity fell below the professed standard


it was sold, in that it was
Potassium Oleates (Soaps)
hyde U. S. P.) 10.00% ", whi
less than 4 percent, sodium


less than 2.50
U. S. P.), in a
Misbranding
label were fals
the article was
Misbranding


on the can label,


percent, an
proportion n
was allege


labeled, (can) "Essential Oils
2.50% Methyl Aldehyde Solution
ereas it contained essential oils in
and potassium oleates (soaps) in
d methyl aldehyde solution (Liq
auch less than 10 percent.
1 in that the above-quoted state


r, on or about
nnsylvania, of


the label,
contained
ermicidal,
of moths.
of Michi-
le district
t corpora-
'ctober 24,
i quantity


insecticide and fungicide

as adulterated in that its
and quality under which


4.00% Sodium a
(Liquor Formah
a proportion mu
a proportion mu
uor Formaldeh


ments


e and misleading, and in that by reason of the said statements
labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
was alleged for the further reason that the following statements


"De Germ The Perfect Purifier Disinfectant


* Germi-


cide Helps prevent contagious disease. Try a few drops in the hath,
the washing machine and the dishpan or on your handkerchief Puri-
fies and protects. An especially effective germicide and disinfectant *
spraying or atomizing the De Germ makes a positive, full disinfecting and
deodorizing contact with all exposed surfaces. By gaseous contact: The pw-
erful Formaldehyde when sprayed or atomized, forms a penetrating gas which
us ... -.n ................................................................................................................................








204


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article consisted par-
tially of an inert ingredient, water, i. e., a substance that does not prevent,


destroy, repel, or mitigate ins
amount of the inert substance
correctly, or at all, on the can
percentage amount of each sub
ticidal or fungicidal properties,
present in the article stated pla


On April


1934,


a plea


company, and on July 12, 1934,


sects


or fungi,


the nam


so present therein were not s
label; nor, in lieu thereof, w
stance or ingredient of the arn
and the total percentage of tl
inly and correctly on the can
guilty was entered on behalf
a fine of $200 was imposed.


e and
tated p
ere the
ticle ha
hie inert
label.
of the


percentage
lainly and
name and
ving insec-
substance

defendant


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agrioulture.


1342. Adulteration and
Bromo Paper.
destruction. (I
This case involved a
tained a compound of b
deodorize. Analysis show
bromine and chloral); te
deodorize.


On October


1


California, acting
district court a li
taining 50 boxes
article had been
about February 2
Co., from Sauger


93
u
be
of
sh
8,
tiE


3


misbranding of Bromo Paper. U. S. v. 14 Cases- of
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
. & F. no. 1657. Sample nos. 45001-A, 45002-A, 45003-A.)
product labeled to convey the impression that it con-
romine and chloral, and that it would disinfect and
ed that it contained no bromo chloralum (compound of
'sts of the article showed that it would not disinfect or


the United States


pon a
1 pray
Brom
dipped
April
es, N.


att


report by the Se
ing seizure and c
o Paper, at San
in interstate comn
22, and August 1,
Y., and charging


violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in
substituted for bromo chloralum.
Misbranding was alleged in that the state
Carbolic Medicated Paper" and (box label


Bromo Chloralum am
known and the inv
embodying their pro
* a thorough
false and misleading
did not contain bro
deodorize water close


nd Car
estor h
perties


bolic Acid
as after a
with the


deodorizing


and
mine
ets or


charged a violation of the
no. 22954 published under
On September 27, 1934.
nation and forfeiture was


orney for
cretary of
)ndemnati
Francisco,
merce in
1933, by
adultera


the Northern District
SAgriculture, filed in
on of 14 cases, each c
, Calif., alleging that
various shipments, on
the Diamond Mills Pa
tion and misbranding


that other substances had


ment


(shipping


and leaflet) "


as disinfectants and
series of experiment
pulp of this paper as


disin


fectant


tended to deceive and misl
and chloral compound a
act as a disinfectant in a
Food and Drugs Act rep(
that act.
no claimant having apple
entered, and destruction (
M. L. WILSON, Acting


)f the wa
lead the p
nd would
ny way.
)rted in n(


case


been


" Bromo


The properties of
uratives are well
succeeded in so
to render its use
ter closet ", were
urchaser, since it
not disinfect or
The libel further
notice of judgment


ared, judgment of condem-
)f the product was ordered.


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1343.


Misbranding


of Cedar


Vaporator


and


Mother Mothproofng


Liquid.


U. S. v. Roseth Chemical Division, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.
(I. & F. no. 1679. Sample nos. 32389-A, 34851-A.)
This case was based on interstate shipments of products intended for use in
the control of moths. Tests of the articles showed that they would not afford
the moth protection claimed. The Mothex Mothproofing Liquid listed sodium
naphthalene sulphonate as an active ingredient, whereas it is not an active
ingredient when used for the purpose intended.








1341-1356]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


205


stantly-converts any closets to a moth proof Cedar Closet Cedar Vaporator
The Cedar Vaporator is an attractive non-spilling and self-acting device that
will instantly convert any closet into a year 'round Mothproof Cedar Closet,
and a safe place for your clothes. It overcomes moth hazards quickly and
easily and gives you 12 months clothes protection. The Cedar Vaporator con-
sists of a bottle of concentrated moth-proofing vapor in liquid form inverted
in an attractive sturdy bronzed metal container. The container holds this con-
centrated liquid from which powerful moth repellant vapors are emitted.
Simply attach the Cedar Vaporator to the baseboard of your closet and keep
doors closed to confine vapors. Since these vapors will not cling to clothes, gar-


ments can be worn immediately as desired without
* A Year of Clothes protection ", were false and x
reason of the said statements the article was labeled so
lead the purchaser, since the article, when used as di
moths and their larvae, would not protect against moths
not make any closet mothproof, would not overcome m
clothes and the liquid contained in the bottles was not a


the customary airing
misleading, and that by
as to deceive and mis-
rected, would not kill
the year round, would
oth hazards or protect
moth repellent and the


article would not protect clothes for one year.
Misbranding of the Mothex Mothproofing Liquid was alleged for the reason
that the statements on the bottle labels and cartons, "Mothex Mothproofing
Liquid One thorough application will mothproof woolens for an entire
year ", "Mothex Mothproofing Liquid will protect all woolen articles such as:
Knit goods, draperies, blankets, carpets, rugs, sweaters, clothing, upholstered
furniture, woolen wear, baby woolens," "Active Ingredients Sodium Fluoride-
.75% Sodium Naphthalene Sulfonate---.25% Inert Ingredients 99.00% ", were
false and misleading, and for the further reason that the article was labeled


so as to
directed
articles
trained in
On Se
informant
$25 on c


deceive and mislead the purchaser
would not mothproof woolens for an
listed on the labels against moths,
the article was not an active ingre(
ptember 21, 1934, a plea of guilty v
ion, the court suspended sentence o
ount 2.


M. L.


, since the article, when used as
entire year, would not protect the
and the sodium naphthalene con-
lient, but was an inert ingredient.
vas entered to both counts of the
in count 1, and imposed a fine of


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1344. Misbranding of
Plea of guilty.
36618-A.)


Rabbit Supto.
Fine, $10 and


U. S.
costs.


v. Supto
(I. & F.


Manufacturing Co.
no. 1681. Sample no.


This case was based on a shipment of Rabbit Supto, the
bore false and misleading claims relative to its germicidal,
deodorant properties, also false and misleading claims that it
and that its action was permanent.
On April 6, 1934, the United States attorney for the Sou
Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fil
court an information against the Supto Manufacturing Co., a
Moines, Iowa, alleging shipment by said company in violati


ticide Act of 1910, on or about March 15, 1933, from the
the State of Illinois, of a quantity of Rabbit Supto, which


insecticide and
It was alleg
the statements
fectant and de
manent and its
-" .. 1* /


fungicide within the meaning of said act.
ed in the information that the article wa
, Rabbit Supto is the greatest non-poiso


04


orant ever produced *
enetrating ability unequalled.


Its actio
Direction


labels of which
disinfectant, and
wvas nonpoisonous


then District of
ed in the district
corporation, Des
on of the Insec-


State of Iowa into
was a misbranded


s misbranded i
nous germicide,
n is positive an
is for Use-As


n that
disin-
id per-
a gen-








206


1345.


Adulteration and
Soap Co., Inc.
no. 65956-A.)


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


misbranding of Cresolis Comp. U. S. v. The
Plea of guilty. Fine, $150. (I. & F. no. 1694.


Azee
Sample


This case involved
requirements of the U:


a product l
united States


abeled Cres
Pharmacopoe


The article contained undeclared inert ingredie
On June 22, 1934, the United States attorn
New York, acting upon a report by the Secret
district court an information against the Azee
alleging shipment by said company, on or about


olis Con
ia for li
nts.
ey for
:ary of
Soap C'
August


mp." that fell below the
quor cresolis compositus.

the Eastern District of
Agriculture, filed in the
o., Inc., Brooklyn, N. Y.,
18, 1933, from the State


of New York into
which was an adu
Insecticide Act of


the Sta
Iterated
1910.


te of New Jersey, of a quantity of Cresolis Comp.
and misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the


The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement, Cresolis
Comp.", borne on the can label, represented that it contained the ingredients
and the proportions of ingredients specified for liquor cresolis compositus in the


United
fell below
it did n
for liqu
alleged
acids ot
specified
Misbr


borne on
said stat


States Pharmacopoeia, whereas ti
iw the professed standard and qua
ot contain the ingredients and th
1or cresolis compositus in the sai
for the further reason that fatty


:her
I in
andi


th


eim


ie strength
lity under
e proportio
d pharmac
material c


and purity of the article-
which it was sold, in that
ns of ingredients specified
opoeia. Adulteration was
other than linseed oil, tar


than cresol, and water had been substituted f
the pharmacopoeia for liquor cresolis compositus.
ng was alleged for the reason that the statement,


e can label, wa
ent the article


s false and mislead
was labeled so as t(


chaser, since the said statement purported t
ingred(lients and the proportions of ingredients s
positus in the pharmacopoeia, whereas it did no
the further reason that the article consisted par
and glycerin, i. e., substances that do not prev
fungi (bacteria) and the name andil percentage
stances so present therein were not stated plainly
label borne on or affixed to the can containing t
were the name and percentage amount of each


article having fungicidal (bactericidal)
the inert substances present therein st


)r the ingredients


" Cresolis Comp.",


Lng, and that by reason of the
> deceive and mislead the pur-
hat the article contained the
pecified for liquor cresolis.com-
t. Misbranding was alleged for
tially of inert substances, water


e


nt, destroy,
amount of


r
thi


- and correctly,
he article; noi
substance or


properties, and the to
ated plainly and correc


epel, or mitigate
e said inert sub-
, or at all, on any
r, in lieu thereof,
ingredient of the
tal percentage of
tly, or at all, on


any label on the cans.
On July 11. 1934, a plea of guilty was entered
company, and the court imposed a fine of $150.


M. L. WILSON, Acting


on behalf


Secretary


of the defendant


Agriculture.


1346.


Misbranding of moth cake.
decree of condemnation.
1697. Sample no. 67246-A.)


U. S.


v. 2 Gross of Moth


forfeiture,


and


destruction


Calce.
,n. (I.


Default
& F. no.


This case involved an interstate shipment of moth cakes that weighed ma-
terially less than 4 ounces, the weight declared on the label.
On April 23, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,


acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, file(
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 2 gross of
field, N. J., alleging thint the article had been shipped in


d in the district court
moth cakes at Bloom-
interstate commerce,


on or about February 20. 1934. by
N. Y., and charging misl)randing in


the Perfur
violation


n Chemical Co., from New York,
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


-








1341-1356]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


207


district court an information against
York, N. Y., alleging shipment by sai
Act of 1910, on or about November 20,
State of New Jersey, of a quantity
secticide within the meaning of the


W. B. Stevens & Son, a corporation, New
id company in violation of the Insecticide
1933, from the State of New York into tilhe
of Fleadex, which was a misbranded in-
said act.


It was alleged min the information that the article was misbranded in that it


consisted partially of an
prevent, destroy, repel,
amount of the said inert
and correctly, or at all,
nor, in lieu thereof, wer
substance or ingredient


inert substance, wat
or mitigate insects
substance present in
on the label affixed
e the name and perch
of the article having


a substance that does not


, and the name and
the article were not st
to the can containing
entage amount of eaci
g insecticidal property


total percentage of the inert substances present the
correctly, or at all, on the said label.
On August 20, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on
company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.


rein, stated


percentage
ated plainly
the article;
hi and every
es. and the
plainly and


behalf of the defendant


M. L. WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1348.


Adulteration and misbranding of Mothgard Camphor Pocket Refills.
U. S. v. 11 Dozen Mothgard Camphor Pocket Refills. Default de-
cree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1700.
Sample no. 69S11-A.)


This case
for use in
camphor an
On April
acting upon
a libel pra


involved a
the control
d would not
26, 1934, the
a report by
ying seizure


product labeled, "Camphor Pocket Refills", intended
of moths. Examination showed that it contained no
afford the moth protection claimed.
United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
and condemnation of 11 dozen Mothgard Camphor


Pocket Refills at Newark, N. J., alleging that th
interstate commerce, on or about March 29. 1934,
from New York, N. Y., and charging adulteration
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the libel that the article was
lene had been substituted completely for campho:
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that t


e article had been shipped in
by the Gold Star Novelty Co..
and mnisbranding in violation

adulterated in that naphtha-


r.
xe following statements in the


labeling were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the pur-
chaser, since the product contained no camphor and would not kill moth larvae
under all conditions: Camphor Pocket Camphor fumes will kill
moth larvae Mothgard Camphor Pocket hang in closet, wardrobe
bags, place in drawers, chests, trunks, camphor fumes will kill all moth
larvae."
On August 25. 1934, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and destruction of the product was ordered.


MA. L.


1349. Misbranding of Antiformin.
Plea of guilty. Sentence
43747-A.)


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


U. S. v. The
suspended.


Agriculture.


American Antiformin
I. & F. no. 1703. Sample


This case involved a fungicide labeled to convey the impression that it was
sanctioned by this Department, whereas it had not been so sanctioned. The


requirement


declared on
On June


the law


that


the inert ingredients


e label was not complied with.
, 1934. the United States attorney


present


for the Easte
rt I I.


in the article


District
1r1 .. -ii -


rxx**xxx**xxxxxxxx


J ^- _


I








208


INSECTICIDE


[N.J., I.?.


which said substances do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi


(bacteria), and the name an
substance present in the artic
all, on the label affixed to the
percentage amount of each sub
cidal (bactericidal) properties,
present therein, stated plainly
On September 28, 1934, a p


fendant company,


and the court


i percentage amount of each and every inert
le were not stated plainly and correctly, or at
carboy; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and
stance or ingredient of the article having fungi-


and the total percentage of the inert su
]nd correctly, or at all, on the label.
lea of guilty was entered on behalf of
L ordered that sentence be suspended.


bstances


the de-


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1350. Misbranding of Vapoo. UI. S. v. 55 Cans and 60 Cans of Vapoo. De-
fault decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F.
no. 1707. Sample no. 69812-A.)
This case involved a shipment of Vapoo, an insecticide and fungicide within
the meaning of the law. Examination showed that the article would not afford
the moth protection, and did not have the disinfecting properties claimed in the
labeling.


May 10, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of New J


upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul
praying seizure and condemnation of 55
Newark, N. J., alleging that the article ha
on or about April 10, 1934, by the Vapoo
and charging misbranding in violation of t


It
ments
* *
proof,
misled
On
and f


vas alleged in the libe
in the labeling, (can
* disinfects and mo
s and disinfects ", wei
ad the purchaser.
August 25, 1934, no cl
orfeiture was entered,


1 that the arti
is) "The Vap
thproofs in on
re false and m


ture, filed
large and(
d been shi
Products


in the d1
60 smal.
pped in 1
Co., froi


Ii~
I
in
n


I,

I


he Insecticide Act of
cle was misbranded
oo Shampoo for rug
e operation ". and (
misleading and tende


trict
cans
tersta
New
1910
in th
:s am
circu
d to


ersey, acting
court a libel
of Vapoo at
te commerce
York, N. Y.,

at the state-
d upholstery
lar) "Moth-
deceive and


aimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
and destruction of the product was ordered.


M. L.


WrmsoN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1351. Adulteration and misbranding of Acme Chlorinated Lime. U. S. v.
51 Cases and 22 Cases of Acme Chlorinated Lime. Default decree
of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1713.
Sample nos. 62335-A, 62336-A.)
This case involved two shipments of chlorinated lime that contained a smaller


proportion of availal
than declared on the
leading claims as to i
On May 29. 1934,
acting upon a report
a libel praying seizu
Chlorinated Lime at
interstate commerce,
spectively, by B. T. :
tion and misbranding
The article in both
purity fell below the
since it was labeled
than 24%, Inert Ing
able chlorine in a pr


ble


chlorine


labels. One of th
ts purifying, sterili


United


States


the Secretar


Se and conde
Baltimore, M
on or about
babbitt, Inc.,
in violation


lots was
professe


m
d.
I
f-
f -


allege'
d stan


, (Can) "Activ
redients not mo
portion much


a larger


proportion


inert


ingredients


lots was labeled with false and
ng, and disinfecting properties.


attorney


y of Agric


nation
, alleging
)ecembei
rom Alb
the Ins
d to be
dard an
e Ingre
re than
less tha


of
Ig
r
an
ec
ad


for the District


Sin ti
id 22
had 1
d Apr
id cha
1910.
that i


culture


51 ce
that
23. 19
ly, N.
ticide
ultera


ises
arti(
130.
Y.,
Act
ted


mis-


of Maryland,


te dist
cases
been s
il 2:5,
urging


rict court
of Acme
hipped in
1933, re-
adultera-


ts strength and


d quality under which it was sold,
dients Available Chlorine not less
76% ". whereas it contained avail-


n 24 percent, and inert ingredients


chlorite,








1341-1356]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


209


divide in tw(
gallons of w\
wholesome.
prepared eve
troughs, etc.
* FOi
lars. etc." w
article was 1l
sented that
of all disease
infect barns,
whereas the
purposes.


) equal ]
water, or
For one
ry day.
One p
S* *
ere fals


part


5).


Of this solution, one ta


ilespoonful will sterilize 10


36 drops one gallon, which will render any water pure and
quart add 9 drops of the solution, which should be freshly
* Disinfects For flushing barns, stables,


0

e


abeled so
the article
e germs,
stables,
article, v


und Acme Chlorinated Lime in about 604)
* purifying vaults, water closets, cesspoo
and misleading, and by reason of the said
as to deceive and mislead tlhe purchaser, si
e, when used as directed, would sterilize <
would render all waters pure and wholeso


troughs, etc.,
rhen used as


gallons water.


drains, cel-
tements the
they repre-
iking water
Should dis-


would purify vaults, cesspools, drains, etc.,
directed, would not be effective for the said


On July 6, 1934, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation and


forfeiture


was


entered, and destruction of the product
M. L. WILSON, Acting St


was


7 crc t(L


ordered.
ry of Agriculture.


1352.


Misbranding of Chlorofectant. UI. S.
fectant Corporation. Plea of guilty
Sample no. 58314-A.)


v. The American Oil & Disin-
'. Fine, $200. (I. & F. no. 1712.


This case was based on
the meaning of the law, v
Examination showed that
portion that rendered it
properties claimed.


On June
acting upon
an informa
under the 1
ment by sa
Jersey intc
which was
of 1910.
It was a
the state
Swimming


training
stateme
since it
sterilize
On A
company:


a shipment of Chlorofectant". a fungicide within
vhich was represented to be nonpoisonous and safe.
the article contained certain ingredients in a pro-
poisonous, also that it did not have the sterilizing


27, 1934, the United States
a report by the Secretary
tion against the American (
aws of New York and doing
lid company, on or about
the State of Massachuse
a misbranded fungicide wi

alleged in the information t
ents, "Non-Poisonous *
Pool Sterilization ". borne


the article, were false a
nts the article was label
was not nonpoisonous,
Swimming pools.


ugust 24. 1934, a
y, and the court


attorney for the Di
of Agriculture, filed
)il & Disinfectant C
g business in New
March 3, 1934, fro
tts, of a quantity
thin the meaning o


hat the article
* Safe *
on the label a


[strict of New Jersey,
Sin the district court


'orI
Jer
m
of
f t


ffixed


)oration, orgar
sey, alleging
the State of
" Chlorofecta
hlie Insecticide


misbranded in
Sterilizer *
to the carboy


sized
ship-
New
nt ",
Act
that
* *
con-


nd misleading, and that by reason of the said
ed so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
would not act as a sterilizer, and would not


plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
imposed a fine of $200.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1353. Misbranding of V2 Moth Proofing Compound. U. S. v. 16 Quart Bot-
ties and 22 Pint Bottles of V2 Motlh Proofing Compound. Default
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. no.
1716. Sample no. 71096-A.)
This case involved an insecticide labeled with false, misleading, and deceptive


claims relative t


also claimed
contained i
On June
anotincr linfT


d for
ngred
19,
1 0 P0


o its efficacy in the control of moths and moth larvae. It was
the article that it was nonpoisonous and harmless, whereas it
ients that might be poisonous or harmful.
1934, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon,
nnrl'- br 4-ha Qnnrn-or*r -P A crr011l llnr filcrl i*n 1-ha r]c3+g*l< nrl+


p








210


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


their larvae


article
(Seams
Saturat
V2 Mot]
fabric,
suits, cc
articles
moths "


v


* To be used as a Spray Only


vigorously


taking care


, pockets, etc.). S
e furniture covering
hi Proofing Compoun
or any substance of
)ats, bathing suits, s
of this type with
, (circular) But


does bring
picture of
laying eggs
lessly and
will die of
furs have 1
usual, but '


relief from worry
the ever-vigilant ho


;, the material
inexpensively
starvation be:
been properly
when the offsp


s w
trea
fore
trea
ring


selected by its proud paren
for hungry moth-worm *
One Safe Product for All
Moth Proofing. *


oughly
positive


imp
I. co


worms ror a
Tested by
States Test
Association
your moth-r
Further, no
untreated n


proofing
fur, will
Laborato
goes a lo
niture, d(1
you will
can safel
potential
alleged f
circular)
V2 is N'


ea(diI


regnated with
nplete, lasting,.
it least two yea


Independent


ing
of
roo
Sev
hate


agent


L


ra:
gs


y


to get the spray


long enough
and infested


to make
areas. T


I


Directions First brush the


the non
the ar


'hen


all


t
o
I:


d (A Vermi-Tox Product) is suitab
animal origin:-furs, skins, rugs, c
waters, hats, spats, upholstery, etc
a durable, harmless chemical wh
ow mod(lern science has developed


* *


'usewife.


V2 has changed


moths


While


tl


cannot


exposed surfaces
:icle quite moist.
)w to evaporate.
le for use on any
arpets, draperies,
. It impregnates
ich is deadly to
a product which
he whole mental


be stopped


from


which they select for their nests can now be harm-
ted in such a manner that the hungry moth-worms
they will eat one mouthful. If your woolens and
ted with V2, moths may lay their eggs therein as
Sis hatched. it finds that the Food-Nest so carefully


t, has become a diet of Poison.
No Damage to your I
Materials It is the
Moth-worms cannot eat any r
V2. It is harmless
worry-proof protection against
rrs, if applied to wool or fur, a
laboratories Quoting from a


Laboratories, the
America: It was
fing agent, that con
idence of larvae a
rial was badly att
possesses consider


adequately protect
ries. Used as a sp
ng way in moth-pro
raperies, etc., it is
be surprised to not
y impregnate all yoi
moth-nests, with t
or the further reas(
"Non-Poisonous to
on-Poisonous *
ag, and by reason o;


for a
ray,
ofing


office
four
nplet<
ctivil
acked
able
Speri
a co


La


testing
that only


e protect
ty was n
1. The r
persisten
lod of at
mparativ


clothing.


Result?


1u
al
na
to
ti
cc<
CC(
re]
)r


louse f(


No Dinner


dson Seal.
1-in-one prod
trial that
use, yet it
hie ravages o
wording to dir
port of the
the Silk an


* *
Luct for
is thor-
affords
f moth-
ections.
United
d Wool


in the sample sprayed with


ion against moth larva
ioted on the treated
results indicated that
ce and when applied
least two years.' U.
ely small quantity of


For carpets,


more economical to purchase 1
;e how quickly, how easily an
ir seldom-used articles of cloth
he safe and sure compound.'
on that the statements in the
animals and humans", (circi


V2 is harmless


f th


e


receive and mislead the purchl
humans and was not harmle
n August 17. 1934, no claimant
forfeiture was entered, and


said sta
aser, sine
ss to hun
it having
lestructio


M. L.


1354.
r1~l1i~


MiNbIramnding of X-O Spray. U. S. v. Senex Chemical Co., Inc.
guilty. I&ne, .$25. (I. & F. no. 1718. Sample no. 21385-A.)
Case was based on an interstate shipment of X-O Spray int


use as an insecticide. Examination showed that
control of certain insects for which it was recomm
-" 3 A1 4t ^. tt 4 n* r. /- ,4- 2'. n nt-ni c1~ n n--- Af- nfl,- ^'r -t*4 ~ ,.'u Fo n a n c


it would r
ended, whe
nla1 *noi m~l


to humar


e occurred.
piece. The
your moth-
to wool or
S. Testing
the liquid


igs, upholstered fur-
the larger sizes, but
d inexpensively you
ing, as well as other
" Misbranding was
labeling, (label and
lar only) "Further
is". were false and


i
tements the article was labeled so as
e it was not nonpoisonous to animals
hans.
appeared, judgment of condemnation
n of the product was ordered.


Agriculture.


Plea of


ended for


lot be an effective
n used as directed,


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


l


(








1341-1356]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


211


For Winter Lice on Cows, Bulls, Calves and Horses
and Mites: Remove straw from nests and spray


and all
sprayed
flies and
fair of
mislead
branded
that the


again
trol
poul
and
that
that


cracks anm
twice a day
other insec
Livestock
ng, and by


* For Poultry Lice
thoroughly. Spray perches


d crevices For Repelling Flies Cows
y according to these directions will be relieved from horn
ts Non-Irritating Does Not Injure the
* Harmless to humans or Cattle ", were false and
reason of the said statements the article was labeled and


so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in
article, when used as directed, would act as
horse flies, would, without repeated treatments, a


winter lice on c
lice, would acd
uld be effective
would not be ii
would be harmli


as directed, would not
not, without repeated
cows, bulls, calves and
not act as an effective
aW n a 4- ^-^ a a ^3* ,- J a -11 .


cows, bulls,
t as an eff


calves and horses, wou
ective repellent against


against all insects indicated by
irritating and would not injure
ess to humans and cattle; where
act as an effective repellent
treatment, act as an effective
horses, would not be effective
repellent against all varieties
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -, ./ ^ I ^ ^ ^ 3 1 .-- A/. ^ t


effe ct ive against all insects indicated by the term
article would be irritating to and would injure the h
heavily, and was not harmless to humans and cattle,


On October


1934, a plea


C
C


the
the


that
an e
ct as
Id be
all v
term
hair
the a


against
control
against
of flies
Other
lir of 1
since it


they represented
effective repellent
an effective con-
effective against
varieties of flies;
"other insects "
of livestock and
article. when used


horse flies, would
1 of winter lice on
poultry lice, would
and would not be
insects", and said
ivestock, if applied
was poisonous.


of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant


company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.


M. L.


1355.


Misbranding of


cree
1724.


" Cedar Chest."


of condemnation,
Sample no. 67242-A.)


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


forfeit


U. S. v. 1
ore, and


Cedar Chest.
destruction.


Agriculture.
Default de-
(J. & F. no.


This case involved an alleged cedar chest which
found to be constructed of fiber board made of w
The chest would not afford the moth protection claim
On August 10, 1934, the United States attorney f
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnat
at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had
commerce, on or about April 4, 1934, by D. C. Kinn
clair, N. J., and charging misbranding in violation


*h,
ood


upon examination, was
Other than red cedar.


aimed.
)r the Southern
of Agriculture,
ion of one Ce
been shipped i
ell & Co., Inc.,
of the Insecti


District of
filed in the
idar Chest"
n interstate
from Mont-
cide Act of


1910.
It was alleged in


lowing s
moths or
that the
genuine
chests.
contains


statements
furnish p
moth-pru
aromatic
Beginning
no moth


the libel


appearing o
protection aga
! cedar fibre
cedar (Junip
with the log
killing oils


oils so deadly to moths are
secure maximum protection *
clothes before storing in this
to seams, crevices and pockets
moth protection you desire."
On September 12, 1934, no
IrimnntiHnn nnrI fn]rfaiftniro T,'a


the article


n the label
inst moths
board use
erus virgin
.s from sele
is removed


retained
*


was misbranded


were false, since i
under all conditions


i in
iana)
acted
*


in the
clean or


moth-pruf cedar
. If care is take


claimant
an taroul


this product is


that is
cedar tre
* all
finished
thorough
product.
n it will


used ir
es the
of the
product
ly brus
Pay sI
give y


having appeared,
Qna r ltf1 --m lnl-inn af


in that


the fol-


would not kill
" We guarantee
made from the
i making cedar
sapwood, which
natural cedar
t To


h an
peci
our


id air your
tl attention
clothes the


judgment of
t-hn nrT-rl-r-


con-


h


h~


k
f


I








212


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F>


seventy-five 1-pound cans of Pestroy at Albany, N.


had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about
(1934) by the Sherwin-Williams Co., from Chicago, Ill., a
teration and misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Acd
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it fell b
standard or quality under which it was sold, namely "Total
25.5% Arsenate of Lead 14.5% Total Arsenic (expressed
Metallic Arsenic) not less than 2.80% Inert Ingredients 74.
trained active ingredients in a proportion much less than 25.


of lead
as perc
and in
The
ments
lead th
follow!
deceive
Lead a


in a proportion much less than 14.5
entum of metallic arsenic, in a proporti
ert ingredients in a proportion much gr(
article was alleged to be misbranded
on the label were false and misleading


e
ng
a
nd


purchaser.


Misbranding was alleged


statements on the label
nd mislead the purchaser:
Bordeaux Mixture in Dry


were false
"Pestroy
Form for


Spraying Directions For the contr
* of apple, pear, certain variety of pl
and strawberry, also bean, beet, cabbage, cauli
ber, watermelon, muskmelon, squash, use from
50 gallons of water or 7 to 9 level tablespoon


potato, use 12
fuls to 1 gallo
insects named
from the pack
On May 25,


pounds c
)n of wat
. When
age and i
1934. nc


)f
:er
us
car
c


and forfeiture was enter
and the product offered f


Pestroy to 50 gallons
. Pestroy also may b
ied in this way it sho
:e taken to distribute
'laimant having appeal
ed, and it was ordered
or sale by the marshal


., alleging that the article-


February 25, 1932
nd charging adul-
t of 1910.
elow the professed


Ac
a:
5%
5 p


percent, total ar
Ion much less th
eater than 74.5


tive Ingredients
s percentum of
", since it con-
ercent, arsenate
senic, expressed
an 2.80 percent,
percent.


in that the above-quoted state-
and tended to deceive and mis-
for the further reason that the
and misleading and tended to
A combination of Arsenate of
Certain Fruit Tree and Garden
ol of certain chewing insects
urns, currant, gooseberry, grape
flower, eggplant, tomato, cucum-
7 to 91/ pounds of Pestroy to
fuls to 1 gallon of water. For
of water or 12 level tablespoon-
e applied as a dust against the
iuld be applied just as it comes
it evenly over the plants."
hired, judgment of condemnation
d that the labels be obliterated
. On July 20, 1934, the marshal


having been unable to
charitable organization.


effect


a sale,


M. L.


the product


was ordered


WILSOn, Acting Secretary of


delivered


Agriculture.


I


































INDEX TO NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1341-1356


Acme Chlorinated Lime: N.J. No-.
Babbitt, B. T., Inc- ---- 1351
Antiformin
American Antiformin Co..... 1349
Bromo Paper:
Diamond Mills Paper Co 1342
Cedar Chest:
Kinnell, D. C., & Co., Inc .- 1355
Cedar Vaporator:
Roseth Chemical Division, Inc- 1343


Chlorofectant:
American Oil &
Corporation---


Cresolis Comp :
Azee oap Co.,


Disinfectant
------- -----


Inc ---...-.. 1345


De-Germ :
Century Chemical Products Co_ 1341


Fleadex:


N. J. No.


Stevens, W. B., & Son.......
Moth Cake:
Perfum Chemical Co--.......
Mothex Mothproofing Liquid:
Roseth Chemical Division, Inc.
Mothgard Camphor Pocket Refills:
Gold Star Novelty Co -.-.---.-


1347
1346
1343
1348


Pestroy:
Sherwin-Williams Co -----.. 1356
Rabbit Supto:
Supto Manufacturing Co ..--- 1344
Vapoo:
Vapoo Products Co--- ... 1350
V2 Moth Proofing Compound:
De Pree Co -------- ------- 1353
X-O Spray:
Senex Chemical Co., Inc.... 1354




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08582 I4
IJI3I 1262 08582 4844