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:
AA00008549:00019

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text


S.5


N. J., I. F.


I ~
.30I mL 0 4


Issued November 1935


United


States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]
1357-1375


[Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, October 30, 1935]
1357. Adulteration and misbranding of Supersan Clortox, and misbrand-
ing of Pine Disinfectant and Superman Animal Soft Soap. U. S. v.
Chemical Compounding Corporation, and Eugene Kohn. Pleas of
guilty. Fines, $375. (I. & F. no. 1714. Sample nos. 43748-A, 43749-A,
43750-A.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of the following products: A
lot of Clortox that contained a smaller proportion of the active ingredient
than declared, and that was labeled with false and misleading claims as to
its alleged antiseptic, disinfecting, and deodorizing properties; a lot of Pine
Disinfectant that was labeled with false and misleading claims that it was
harmless and was an effective disinfectant for personal use; and a lot of
Animal Soap labeled with false and misleading claims as to its alleged effec-
tiveness against mites, mange, scabies, and other insects.


On September 29, 11
of New York, acting
the district court an
ration and Eugene I
fendants, in violation
1933, from the State o
of Supersan Clortox w
of Pine Disinfectant a
The information ci
strength and purity fe


the United States attorney for the Eas


upon a report by the Secretary of
information against the Chemical


ohn,
of the


Agricul
Compou.


Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment
Insecticide Act of 1910, on or about


if New York
vhich was ad
nd Supersan
iarged that
ll below the


into the State
ulterated and
Animal Soft
the Clortox
professed stan


it was sold, "Active Ingredients: 4.0% Sodium
tained sodium hypochlorite in a proportion less


of New Jersey,
misbranded and
Soap, which were
was adulterated
dard and quality
Hypochlorite ",
than 4 percent,


tern District
ture, filed in
ending Corpo-
by said de-
November 8,
of a quantity
of quantities
misbranded.
in that its
under which
since it con-
namely, 3.38


percent.
Misbranding of the Clortox was alleged for the reason that the statement,
"Active Ingredients: 4.0% Sodium Hypochlorite", borne on the bottle label,
was false and misleading, and by reason of the said statement the article was


labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
than 4 percent of sodium hypochlorite. Misbranding
leged for the further reason that the following state
"It is, therefore, the best disinfectant and medium
disease germs in urine, fecal discharges, sputa, etc.
tion-_% solution (tablespoonful to pint of water) is


since it contained less
of the Clortox was al-
ents on the bottle label,
for the destruction of
* For Disinfee-
a powerful disinfectant


(








INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I.F.


of the said


the purcha
charges of
not act as
infect the
feet waste
at the dilu


statements


iser; since
all kinds,
an effect
air; would
pipes, ice
tion of 1 t


Misbranding of th


the article


the article


was


would


labeled


so as


to deceive


not be effective in


urine


fecal discharges, and for all antiseptic
ve disinfectant at the dilutions specified
not disinfect and deodorize toilet bowls;
boxes, and garbage cans; would not act
ablespoonful in the bath.
e Pine Disinfectant was alleged for the


statements, "Harmless to Humans and
Personal Uses: A 5% solution is very
foot bath, douche. Also a delightful
on the can label, were false and misl
ments the article was labeled so as


since it was not harmless


Animals", "
useful as a
addition to
fading anid 1
to deceive


to humans and animals


i


SDisinfectant
mouth wash,
shampoo and
by reason of
nd mislead t
n that it was


mislead


, sputum,


purposes; would
; would not dis-
would not disin-
as an antiseptic


reason


that the


* For
throat spray,
bath ", borne
the said state-
he purchaser;
poisonous, and


since the article, when used as directed, would not act as an effective disin-
fectant for personal uses.
Misbranding of the Animal Soap was alleged for the reason that the state-
ments, Supersan Animal Soft Soap Kills Fleas, Mites, Lice and


mar~ other insects.
and misleading and
so as to deceive an


Aids in 1
by reason
d mislead


directed, would not kill m
treatment of mange and sca
indicated by the term "m
that the said Animal Soap v
Act, reported in Notice of J
On October 5, 1934, the
imposed fines totaling $375


Treatment of Mange, Scabies", were false
the said statements the article was labeled
purchaser; since the article, when used as


sites and would not be effective as an aid in the
babies, and would not be effective against all insects
any other insects." The information also charged
was misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs
judgment no. 23258 published under that act.
defendants entered pleas of guilty and the court
for violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


itt.


WILSON, Acting


1;,5. Misbranding of Organic Cleanser. U. S. v.
cal Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.
no. 60937-A.)


Secretary of
The United


& D.


Agriculture.
States Chemi-


no. 1747.


Sample


This case was based on an interstate shipment of a fungicide, known as Organic
Cleanser, which contained inert ingredients that were not indicated on the
label as required by law.


On December


of Ohio,
district


porati
April
ity of
ing of
The
inert
substa
name


acting
court an


1934


United


States attorney for the


upon a report by the Secretary
information against the United


, Greenville, Ohio, allegin
. 1934, from the State of
organic Cleanser which wa
ie Insecticide Act of 1910.
article was alleged to be r


subsi
nces
and


were not s
containing
amount of
tericidal)
ent, stated


Southern District


of Agriculture,
States Chemical


g shipment by said company, on or about
Ohio into the State of Indiana, of a quan-
s a misbranded fungicide within the mean-


nisbranded


in that it


dances, i. e., substances other than hydroci
do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fi
percentage amount of each inert substance
stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the
the article; nor, in lieu thereof, were th
every substance or ingredient of the article


properties, and the total percentage of the i
plainly and correctly, or at all, on the label.


consisted


partially


loric acid, which inert
ungi (bacteria), and the
so present in the article
label affixed to the jugs
e name and percentage
having fungicidal (bac-
nert substances so pres-


___ ^- .. S. ta it fl i .1.. tJL ii -


I


!


"


]








1357-1,, j


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


217


district court an information against the C. H. C. Chemical Co., a corporation,
Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging shipment by said company on or about May 8, 1934,
from the State of Ohio into the State of Indiana of a quantity of Cinoline, which
was a misbrand'ed fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


The article was alleged to be misbranded in tha
"1. Use one part of Cinoline to seven parts water.


building and work down,
ways. Apply about one
Toilets and Washrooms
foul odors. 4. In additi
Weekly, which can usual
centrated form for this
or eye watering, open a
there will be no complain


the article,
the article
represented
whereas the
Misbrandi
partially of
of the said
correctly or


were false and
vas labeled so as


spraying Class rooms. Clot
hour before School opens
Daily, as Cinoline is an id
on, we suggest that a thl
lly be done un Saturday
purpose. 5. In case same
wind(low, so as to create
nt ", borne on tihe label all


LI

e
ii
(
S
a
1:


t tlhe
2. S
k roc
or at
al di
rough
)V a
houl
t dra
xeu' t


following statements,
tart at the top floor of
)ms, Lockers andti Hall-
noon hour. 3. Spray
sinfectant to eliminate
Fumigation be made
Holiday. Use in con-
I rause slight sneezing
ft. In a few minutes
o the drum containing


misleading, and by reason of the said statements
to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they


t the article when used
id article when used as
was allegedly for the fu
inert substance, water
rt substance present in
all on the label affixed


the name and percentage amount of ea
having fungicidal (bactericidal) prop


as directed, would act as a disinfectant;
directed would not act as a disinfectant.
irther reason that the article consisted
, and the name and percentage amount
Sthe article were not stated plainly or
to the drum; nor, in lieu thereof, were
ch substance or ingredient of the article
erties and the total percentage of the


inert substance present stated plainly and correctly or at all on the said label.
On January 14, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $50.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1360. Adulteration and misbranding of Medina Process Blue Dust and
Medina Process Copper Arsenic Dust. U. S. v. 12 Bags of Medina
Process Blue Dust and 12 Bags of Medina Process Copper Arsenic
Dust. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, adn destrue-
tion. (I. & F. no. 1638. Samples nos. 40551-A, 40552-A.
This case involved products, sold as insecticides and fungicides, that con-
tained less copper expressed as metallic, less monohydrated copper sulphate,
and more inert ingredients than declared on the tags attached to the bags
containing the article.
On July 24, 1933, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 12 bags of Medina
Process Blue Dust and 12 bags of Medina Copper Arsenic Dust at Hanna, Ind.,
alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about
May 27, 1933, by the New York Insecticide Co., Inc., from Medina, N. Y., and
charging misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910. On August
2, 1934, an amendment to the libel was filed charging that the articles were
also adulterated in that their strength and purity fell below the professed
standard and quality under which they were sold since they contained less
copper expressed as metallic, less monohydrated copper sulphate, and more
inert ingredients than declared on the labels.
Misbranding was alleged in that the following statements borne on the
labels were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the
purchaser: (Blue Dust) "Nine percent copper Copper Sulphate
- .. &r .- x A A.*-* a .f- -. a


>
>
r








218


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


On Jun
Kentucky,
district co
Antiseptic
interstate


froi
Act
I
ing
wit
the


rn


e 28, 1934,
acting up
urt a libel
at Louisv
commerce,


SMercer,
of 1910.


the United States
on a report by tilhe
praying seizure an
'ille, Ky., alleging
on or about April


charging


attorney for the Western District of
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
d condemnation of 10 bottles of Savol
that the article had been shipped in
26, 1934, by the Savol Chemical Co.,


misbranding


violation


of the


Insecticide


t was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the follow-
statements on the bottle and carton labels, and in a circular shipped
h the article, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead
purchaser, (bottle) "Directions: Unless otherwise desired, use diluted


Savol


consisting


teaspoonful


Diluted Savol is an excellent d
in cupboards, sinks, closets,


sprinkle
Bed-buu
Savol
germs
acid,
insects
the mo
market


ed
igs,
is


with
etc."
an id


diluted Savol
; (circular)
al antiseptic,


I
I


isinfec
etc.",
, (cart
Savol
for it


a pint


very


tant and deodorant ii
(circular) "Poultry
on) "Savol *
* The ideal
quickly destroys all


hot water *
i the sick room :
houses should
Destroys *
antiseptic *


microbes


or


* it has three times as much germ-destroying power as
* Cupboards that are infested with vermin can be free
by washing them with diluted Savol. Savol *
st agreeable and efficient antiseptic, disinfectant and deodorant
", since the article was not an excellent disinfectant in the


disease
carbolic
d from
* it is
on the
places


named, and would no
when applied by sprin


bugs, etc.;
microbes or
ing power
all vermin;
odorant in
the article
does not p


it was not
disease ge
as carbolic
and was
the market
consisted I


event,


t


disinfect


when


used


at the


dilution


recommended


kling; when used as directed it would not destroy bed-
the ideal antiseptic; it would not quickly destroy all
rms; it did not have three times as much germ-destroy-
acid; it would not free cupboards from all insects and
not the most agreeable and efficient antiseptic and de-
. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that
)artially of an inert substance, water, which substance


destroy,


repe


or mitigate


insects


and percentage amount of such inert ingredient were n


stated on the label; nor, in lieu thereof,
of each and every ingredient of the a
properties, and the total percentage of
conspicuously on the label. The libel
and Drugs Act reported in Notice of
that act.


On August
ordering that


were the name
article having in
the inert ingred
also charged a
Judgment no.


or fungi,


the name


ot plainly and correctly
and percentage amount
secticidal or fungicidal
ient, stated plainly awl
violation of the Food
22978, published under


9, 1934, no claimant having appeared, judgment
the product be destroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of


1362. Misbranding of Cedartex. UT. S. v. 36 S
decree of destruction. (I. & F. no. 1561.
This case involved Cedartex, a plaster inten
clothes closets, which was represented to afford


Examination of the product showed that, when used
afford permanent moth protection. The package fai
a statement indicating the inert ingredients.
On or about December 31, 1931, the United States
District of Michigan, acting upon a report by the
filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and


t


was


entered


Agrieidtun ~.


lacks of Cedartex.
S. no. 251.)
ded for use in the
1 permanent moth


as directed,
led to bear


Default


lining of
protection.


it would not
on the labels


attorney for the Eastern
Secretary of Agriculture,
condemnation of 386 sacks







1357-1375]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


219


were
the a
ingre
inert
labelE
On
order


not stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the bags containing
article; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount of the
dient having insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of the
substances in the article, stated plainly and correctly on each of the
s.


S


February 4,
ng that the


1932, no claimant having appeared, judgmer
product be destroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of


it


was


entered


Agriculture.


1363.


Mi.nbranding of Dr. Kleinfeld's Medicated Flea Shampoo. Dr. Klein-
feld's Flea Powder, and Dr. Kleinfeld's Bird Lice Powder. U. S.
v. Paramount Pet Supply Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1. (I. &
F. no. 1740. Sample nos. 67297-A, 67299-A, 67300A.)


This case wa
Medicated Flea
on the label as
dients and less
Powder, which
ingredient othex
than declared
found to contain


3 based on a shipment of various insecticides, one of which, the
Shampoo, contained inert ingredients that were not declared
required by law. The Flea Powder contained more inert ingre-
active ingredients than declared on the label. The Bird Lice
declared talc as the sole inert ingredient, contained an inert
r than talc and the total of the inert ingredients was greater
on the label. Sample packages taken from all products were
n less than the declared quantity of contents.


On November 22, 1934,. the
Jersey, acting upon a report
trict court an information ag


United States attorney for the
by the Secretary of Agriculture,
ainst the Paramount Pet Supply


District
filed in
Co., In


City, N. J., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the In
Act of 1910, on or about October 21, 1933, from the State of New Je,
the State of New York, of quantities of Dr. Kleinfeld's Medicat
Shampoo, Dr. Kleinfeld's Flea Powder, and Dr. Kleinfeld's Bird Lice
which were misbranded insecticides within the meaning of said act.
The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the statement,


of New
the dis-
c., Union
secticide
rsey into
:ed Flea
Powder,


Fluid


Ounces ", with respect to the Flea Shampoo, and the statement, "Contents 1
Ounce ", with respect to the Flea Powder and to the Bird Lice Powder, borne
on the labels, were false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements
the articles were labeled so as to deceive and mislo,', the purchaser, since
the bottles containing the Flea Shampoo contained less than 2 ounces, and the
cans containing the Flea Powder and the Bird Lice Powder contained less than
1 ounce of the articles.


Misbrandin
it consisted
centage amour
rectly, or at
percentage ax


g
pa
ant
all
no


ties, and the tota
and correctly, or
was alleged for t
Powdered Derris
label, were false
article was label
article contained


of the Flea
rtly of an
of the sai
. on the bo
unt of each


1 percent
at all, o0
lie further
Root 27
and misl
ed so as
active in


Shampoo
inert subs
d inert sub
title label: i
substance
ige of the ii
n the said l
Lr reason th
.5% Inert
ending, and
to deceive
gredients in


was al
tance,
stance
ior, in
of the
nert si
abel.
at the


leged for the further reason that
water, and the name and per-
were not stated plainly and cor-
lieu thereof, were the name and
article having insecticidal proper-
ibstance so present, stated plainly
Misbranding of the Flea Powder
statements, "Active Ingredients:


Ingredients 72.5%", borne on the
by reason of the said statements
and mislead the purchaser, since
a proportion much less than 27.5


cent, and contained inert
percent. Misbranding of


reason that the statement, '
label, was false and misleadin:
a-'1 1 ain I-t/ a h- I-/ n- A n. n 4-^- n ^ A-n r^ *! n n


ingredients in
the Bird Lice


a proportion
Powder was


[nert Ingredient
r, and by reason
n-A ,1 4V .1~iArtr 4-ba /


Talc
of the
nflflnl/i


much greater than 72.5
alleged for the further


72.5%
said
f i ft <,t


", borne on the can
statement the article
nlSv^*/ 4It a cmi AI ~nm 4-nf







220


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


On or about June 25, 1934, the United States attorney for the District q
Massachusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 85 packages of
Mothex Cedarized Tablets at Boston, Mass., alleging that the article had been
shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 21, 1933, by the Odora Co.,
Inc., from New York, N. Y., and charging misbranding in violation of the Insecti-
cide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements
appearing on the label and carton, (label) "Mothex Cedarized Tablets Kill
Moths and Moth Eggs Mothex The Superior Moth Destroyer Safe
Effective Economical Directions Unwrap Tablets Use in Clothes Pockets Furs
Woolens Closets Drawers Chests etc.", (carton) "Mothex Cedarized Tablets
Kills Moths and Moth Eggs The Ideal Moth Repellant Use Mothex
Cedarized Tablets for Complete Moth Protection Mothex Moth Repel-
lants Mothex Cedarized Tablets Safe Efficient", were false and
misleading and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled so as
to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they represented that the article
when used as directed would kill moths and moth eggs and would repel moths;
whereas the article when used as directed, would not be effective against moths
under all conditions, would not repel moths, and would not furnish complete
moth protection under all conditions.
On August 7, 1934, no claimant having appeared, judgment of forfeiture was
entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


M. L.


WIr.soN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1365. Misbranding of Reefer's No-Moth Sets and Reefer's No-Moth Refills.
U. S. v. 116 Reefer's No-Moth Sets and 55 Bottles of Reefer's No-
Moth Refills. Default decree of condemnation and forfeiture.
(I. & F. no. 1702. Sample no. 62319-A.)
This case involved a shipment of moth sets consisting of a liquid and a vapor-
izer, and certain bottles of the liquid to be used as refills. Examination of the
article showed that it would not kill moths and afford the moth protection
claimed in the labeling.
On April 27, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia, holding a district court, a libel praying
seizure and condemnation of 116 Reefer's No-Moth Sets and 55 bottles of Reefer's
No-Moth Refills at Washington, D. C., alleging that the articles had been shipped
in interstate commerce on or about April 5, 1934, by Reefer-Galler, Inc., from
New York, N. Y., and charging misbrandling in violation of the Insecticide Act
of 1910.


The articles were alleged to be misbranded in
borne on the labels of the bottles of the refills t
the said sets, Reefer's No-Moth Kills Moths *


fully.
metal
Punch
Be sum
through


1. Remo
holder.
holes wi
'e to punf
h this hw


the floor at the
collar into hold
metal cup. Use
closed ", and th
infl^i.ni i f lt***t / 4.t n .* f *


that the following statements,


11(1 011
*


ve the bottle together with wooden (
It is important not to detach wooden c
th a very sharp pointe ch pencil as far as possible so that th
*le. 3. Hang the metal holder on the
rear of case or clothes closet. 4. Re*
er so that the wooden collar sets soli
in space as large as 75 cubic feet. To
e following statements appearing in a


*. -- .. *r-' S
fl~ iVl*t ~ d S nxd-r. ~ ~ '.d ~~X5 S..Iflnt ~nS-, ~..


the bottles contained in


Directio


care
from
rked
Lid is
ioard
bottle


dly on the
confine fui


circular
eXl ,4l"r, 1 '1


f


ns Read Care-
ully from the
the bottle. 2.
'Punch Here.'
clearly visible
or place it on


e with w
bottom
mes, keep
Inclosed


ooden
of the
doors
in the
*n dX 'bt ir .


-







1357-1375


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


221


when used as directed, would kill
against moths for 12 months; where
not kill clothes moths, and would
months.


On January 23,
tion was entered
manner as would


clothes moths and would give protection
as the article when used as directed would
not give protection against moths for 12


, 1935, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-
and it was ordered that the product be disposed of in such
not violate the provisions of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1366.


Misbranding of Atlas Disinfeetant. U. S. v.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. no. 1732.


Outlet Sales Co., Inc.,
Sample no. 58017- A.) .


This case was based on a
labeling of which contained
disinfecting properties. The
was not declared on the label
On December 21, 1934, the


in interstate
false and mi
article consis
as required
United Stat


shipment
leading cl
ited partly
by law.
es attorney;


of Atlas Disinfectant, the
aims relative to its alleged
of an inert substance which

y for the Southern District


of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Outlet Sales Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.,
alleging shipment by said company on or about October 24, 1933, from the State
of New York into the State of Massachusetts of a quantity of Atlas Disinfectant
which was a misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning of the
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Disinfectant


* *
cleaning
purposes.
Cuts and
Urinals,
water ",
false and


General Cleaning-Use 3 teaspoons
sinks, ice boxes, floors and all other
The sickroom-one table
I Wounds-Two teaspoons to the qi
etc. Flush bowl regularly with solut
borne on the label affixed to the bc
misleading, and by reason of the sai


ful to each pail of water used for
mopping, scrubbing and sprinkling
lespoon to each gallon of water.


iuart of warm water.
ion of half a cup to
3ttles containing the
1 statements the article


Lavatories,
the gallon of
article, were
e was labeled


so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they represented that it would
act as an effective disinfectant when used in the dilutions specified on the label;
would act as an effective disinfectant for cuts and wounds when used in the
dilutions specified on the label; and would disinfect lavatories and urinals when
used as directed; whereas the article would not act as an effective disinfectant
when used in the dilutions specified on the label; would not act as an effective
disinfectant for cuts and wounds when used in the dilutions specified on the
label; and would not disinfect lavatories and urinals when used as directed.
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article consisted
partially of an inert substance, water, which does not prevent, destroy, repel, or
mitigate insects or fungi (bacteria), and the name and the percentage amount
of the said inert substance present in the article were not stated plainly and


correctly, or at all, on the bottle label; nor, in lieu there
and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient of
inieeticidal or fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and th
of the inert substance present stated plainly and correctly,
said label.
On January 21, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf
and the court imposed a fine of $50.


f, were the name
the article having
e total percentage
or at all, on the

f of this defendant


M. L. WILSON, Actina Secretary of Auariculture.


1367. Misbranding of The Electric Moth Master. U. S. v.
ing Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.
(T & P no 1715 Snmnlo no 2o27--A )


Teco Manufactur-
Fine remitted.


T T


Lf








222


INSECTICIDES


~CT


[N. J., I. F.


Kills
Moths


Moths
and


Larvae


jnkA


Larva
wi:h


In Larvae
continue throughout
generally maintained
the Electric Motluhmas
less should completely


ately longer. *
Rugs, Upholstered


Moth Injury. N
mination of Cloi
Electric Moth Mz
fumigation make
has combined ele


copious gas that
your closets an(
Moths and their
provided by the
only a positive la
able against the
your entire hom(
the efficiency of
to quickly rid ti
worth its weight
plate that has b
master cap. Bri
when closing the
sion cord, or to
cal Fumigation
contain 200 cub
highly concentra
cient to kill all
portionately long
fumigation. All
in place to be ft
mercial extermrn


sure


remedy.


electric m
home. A
smaller ui
fumigated
under the
the closet.


Situation
again yo
closet th
it. The]
under thi
that the
carpets o
expedien


1
,U
ua
a a


(


e *
Vap
ch a
yea
the
of a
1 there


S* A Mo
Furniture


s


o Work--No)
thes Moths


* The


Electric


Mottimaster


Quickly


A S I


Kills


or Developed by Controlled Heat Just Plug It
t various times and their destructive activities
r at the normal room temperatures which are
present day home. Six hours fumigation wiAh
tight closet containing 250 cubic feet of Space or
u. Larger closets should be fumigated proportion-
it Efficient Mo h Fumigator for the Home Insures
Clothing-Furs and all other Woolens Against
Worry Just Plug It In", (circular) "The Exter-
* A Moth Killer That Really Kills The


aster Quickly kills moths and their larvae Electrical
s you master of the moth situation in your home. Here science
~ctrical heat with a most effective chemical into a pungent and
cannot fail to thoroughly permeate every nook and crevice of


every thread
larvae cannot


of the
survive


garments
six hours


fabrics
electrical


stored therein.
fumigation as


Electric Mothmaster. The Electric Mothmas er is not
tbor saver, but it is by far the most economical insurance avail-


ravages of Moths.


Only one Mothmaster is required


e against infestation by these unw


welcomed guests.


I


the Electric Mothmaster could be measured only by
he closets of Moths and their destructive Larvae, it
Sin gold because the operation is so easy. Simply s
een placed in the center of the closet floor. Open
ng the cord out over the door sill. Raise up on the
door, so it will clear the cord. Connect the plug to


any electrical outlet
has begun: *
ie feet of space, or


ted gas
existing
rer. The
woolen
imigated
eating co
3ut that


)thmaster


develo
Moth
door
clothiz
along
mpani
is e


because


ped by
life.
must
ng and
with
es has
pensiv


t


it is a


that
Sa
less
the


may
ving
, six
Elec


to protect
If
its ability
would be
et it on a
the Moth-
door knob
an exten-


be more convenient and Electri-
the Furniture For closets that
hours of fumigation with the
trick Mothmaster should be suffi-


Larger closets should be fumigated pro-
be kept tightly shut during the period of


other fabrics usually kept there


the closet. Fumi
been accepted as the mos
e! This problem is now
complete moth fumigating


gation
f effect
solved
plant


closet will often accommodate an upholstered chair. Man:
holstered pieces and cushions can also be put in a closet that
. Place the electric Mothmaster on the floor of the closet
upholstered niece and it will be thoroughly fumigated, as


* *
in Your
employ th
is to be


]L- ---.-
The Electric Moth Master Makes Yo
Home. Protecting Your
e closet to advantage. Place a can
fumigated, and drape, or balloon


n by placing the Electric Mothmas
Le chair, the rug will be subjected t
entire closet receives. Remember
r rugs unless they are treated in tight
t of s'nrinkling powders, crystals or


open room afnor
lhh, onr.t *


ds very
* Tpha


doubtful protection
rlaonwtoi Xfnth ATafwt


I,


IT


ter on
o the
that y
, confli
liquid
if an


* xlumin


u Master
Rugs *
e seated c
the rug


closet


are h
by co
ive a
by t
for t
'of t
is to
direc
well


eft
im-
nd
:he
:he
:he
be
tly
as


of the Moth
* Here
hair in the
loosely over


floor


directly


same rnorougn iumigat
'ou cannot kill Larvae
ed enclosures. The sim
Is on rug surfaces in
iy, against destruction
nnton tha urors hv li1inir


ion


its~


k IL jl


?


I
'


Y


r


.







1357-1375]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


223


the article would kill moth
automobile upholstery; whe
kill moths and their larva
upholstery.
On December 27, 1934, a p
company and the court impo


is and their larvae and would eliminate
reas the article, when used as directed,
te and would not eliminate moths in


moths in
would not
automobile


lea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
sed a line of $25, which fine was remitted.


M. L. WILSON, Actiwg Secretary


1368. Adulteration and mnisbranding of
Manufacturing Co. Plea of nolo
Sentence of 6 months' probation;
1726. Dom. nos. 43283, 43365, 43366.
26454-A, 26455-A, 26480-A.)


Agrieniture.


Cid and Astogen. U. S. v. Rose
contender. Judgment of guilty.
sentence suspended. (I. & F. no.
51136. Sample nos. 0825-A, 9826-A,


This case was based on interstate shipments of products, known as Cid and
Astogen, which were insecticides and fungicides within the meaning of the
Insecticide Act. Examination showed that the articles contained inert ingre-
dients in a proportion greater than declared on the labels and inert ingredients
other than those declared. The labels also contained unwarranted claims
regarding the effectiveness of the articles in the control of certain insects and


fungi.
On December 4,
Pennsylvania, acti


1934, the
ng upon


the district court an informa
portion at Philadelphia, Pa.,
of the Insecticide Act of 1910
1932, from the State of Penn,
and Georgia, of quantities o
misbranded.


The articles were
labels, Inert Ingred
ingredient: Silica 30


standard
the inert
and that t
proportion
strength a
quality un
percent of


nd quality
ingredient,
he latter c
of silica i
nd purity
der which


water


alleged
ient:
) p.C."
y of th
water,
ontaine
n the a
of the
they
d conta


United States attorney for the Eastern District of
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in


tion against the Rose Man
alleging shipment by said
, between the dates of Feb
sylvania into the States of
f Cid and Astogen which


to
Water


adulterated


r


with


with respect to th
e articles were suc
in the proportion
d silica only as an
article was not more
articles fell below
vere sold, since the


ined


I
inert


ingredien


Astogen contained inert ingredients other than
silica in the article was greater than 30 percent.
Misbranding of the OlCid was alleged for the
statements borne on the bottle label. Inert ingre


trols insects *
chrysanthemum
erpillars *
weekly until c
he sprayed wit


-P *


kills


r


beetles *
* cucumber
controlled *
h Cid double


is advisable to loosen the soil
sionally with a weak solution
mixing four tablespoonfuls (2
quantity of Cid used for spray
gen-forming a protective film
disease OlCid *
blights including rust, yellows
.


nost plan
rose
beetles
for
strength.


and
of
fluid
ing
again]
fur
;, ste
-* StE


t insects
chafers
*' *f -
resistant
without


respect to


h


Lufacturing Co., a cor-
company in violation
ruary 23 and May 18,
New York, Maryland,
were adulterated and


statements


Astogen, purported
that the former


on the
"Inert


that the
contained


of not more than 22 percent,
inert ingredient, and that the
than 30 percent; whereas the
the professed standard and
Cid contained more than 22
.ts other than water, and the


silica


reason


dient


I the

that


Water


proportion


following


22%. Cid con-


by contact, such as astel
* snails *
for other insects, once or
insects plants
injury to foliage *


rand
nn4--~


V+.CI. l-
twice
may
* It


water plants subject to root insects occa-
Cid to destroy surface and soil insects-
ounces) to the gallon of water-the same
* Cid may be mixed with Insectro-
nst insects Olid controls *
igicide plant spray controls many
m rot, delphinium blight Start
at A -i. S* a I







224


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I.F.


than 22 percent and when used as directed it would not control all insects,
would not act as an effective insecticide against aster and chrysanthemum
beetles, rose chafers, snails, cucumber beetles, all caterpillars and all other
insects, would not control all plant diseases and would not control rust, yellows,


stem rot, delphinium blight, and all fungi on aster
Misbranding of the Astogen was alleged for
statements, borne on the can label, "Inert ingre
Kills Most Root Insects Including Cut Worms
for root insects, ants, cut worms, white grubs,
many parasitic insects on plant roots and in the
bines, Nasturtiums. Marigolds, Snapdragons, Cale


other plants. Astogen
frame, and the vegetable garden
worms, sow bugs, millipeds *


is useful when
(after plants
etc. *


and other plants.
the reason that the following
dient: Silica 30 p.c. *
* An effective control
wire worms, sow bugs, and
soil-including Asters, Colum-


ndulas, Heliotropes
cultivated into the
are growing), contr
* For eliminating


I

'4


Get Rid of garden ants, simply spread Astogen over the ant mounds
when necessary. Astogeu with Peat Moss Astogen will


useful
placing
other ii
soil of


in spreading about one-quarter of an inch deep over the :
peat moss on flower beds in order to keep out the rose pith
sects Astogen is valuable for potted plants, as it


insect


pests


Astogen


the soil


(
4
1
4


most insects


and many
soil, cold
ailing cut
Ants To
. Repeat
be found
il before
borer and
clears the
, and has


been found a great labor saver in preventing ants from carrying mealy bugs
and other pests to the plant, as the eggs, larvae, and adults are destroyed in the
ground by the toxic effect of Astogen Astogen is a non-poisonous
cut worm control Where plants have been allowed to grow and have
not been previously treated, liberal applications of Astogen have been found
to greatly improve their condition. This practice will destroy root insects, ants,


cut woi
but the
subject
Many S
assists
togen
perman
around
into th
peat A!
plants ]
applica
were ft


:ms and other soil pests We have used the aster
Same treatment is equally valuable for other plants and
to root insects And Remember-Astogen Kills Cut
oil Insects Without Poisoning Vegetables or Plants. *
in preventing yellows Directions for
* About ten days after the plants have been transfer
ent location and show growth, cultivate half a trowel full
the roots of each plant. The preparation should also be


Ssoi
stoge
have
tions
lse


around plants


near the stem a


n application several times d
been allowed to grow and havy
of Astogen have been found
and misleading and by reason


U'


was labeled so as to deceive and mislead ti
that it contained silica only as an inert i
not more than 30 percent and, when used a:
insecticide against all insects so designated
insects that might be included under the a
in preventing yellows of asters: whereas
ents other than silica, it contained silica
percent and when used as directed would
against the insects so designated, or against
might be included under the abbreviatio
preventing yellows of asters.
On January 23. 1!)35, a plea of nolo con
adjudged the defendant to be guilty and
probation which sentence was suspended.


t the su
ing the
not beer


rface of soil *
season. *
1 previously trea


as a basis,
vegetables
Worms and
* Astogen


Using As-
ed to their
of Astogen
cultivated
* Re-
* Where
ted, liberal


o greatly improve their condition ",
of the said statements the article
te purchaser, since they represented
ingredient, and in the proportion of
s directed, would act as an effective


and against all root insects and all
abbreviation "etc." and would assist
the article contained inert ingredi-
in a proportion greater than 30
not act as an effective insecticide
t all root insects or all insects that
n "etc.", and would not assist in


tendere was entered.
imposed a sentence


the court
6 monthst


!


i


t







1357-1375]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


225


not


guaranty that the article was
ing of the Insecticide Act of
edition as when so sold and del
about June 23, 1933, by the sa
the State of New Jersey, and
meaning of the said act.
The article was alleged to
borne on the bottle and carton
tion having antisept
indicated that Florozone has


the common pus-producing organism",
especially adapted for use in the Home,
tutions, Theatres, Boarding and Apartm
there is need of an efficient Deodorizer,
to bother with unpleasant disinfectants
fragrant odor, in place of carbolic acid,
general disinfection. Florozone is effec
for General Use For Household a
diluted, Directions As an an
perspiration centers, use several tables


Florozone
women's
a Quart
adapted f
Boarding
need of
bother w


personal h
of Warm


:or
and
an
ith


practical,


exquisite


adulterated or misbranded within the mean-


1010; that the said article, in the identical con-
ivered, was shipped in interstate commerce on or
id E. J. Barry, from the State of New York into
that it was a misbranded fungicide within the

be misbranded in that the following statements
Labels, (bottle and carton) "A valuable prepara-
tic properties. Scientific bacteriological tests have
definite killing strength against Staphyloccus,-


(bottle


Hospitals. Public Buildings
ent Houses, Stores; in gene
Germicide and Disinfectant.
any more. Use Florozone


cresol or other ill-sin
tive and pleasant to
nd General Disinfe
tiseptic wash for the
oonsful to a quart of


pleasant


antisep


giene Directions for Feminine Hygiene
Water'", (carton) "Disinfectant *


use in the Home, Hospitals, Public
SApartment Houses, Theatres, stores
efficient Deodorizer, Germicide and
unpleasant disinfectants any longer


Buildings


I


selling
use.
action,
hands
water
:ic *


Tw<
* i


is
and Insti-
ral where
No need
, with its
agents for
Directions
use un-
face and
*
for


DC

Ins


; in general where
Disinfectant. No
. Use Florozone,


fragrant odor, in place of carbolic acid, cresol or other ill-sn
general disinfection. Florozone is effective and pleasant to
for General Use For Household and General Disinf
diluted, Directions As an antiseptic wash for the
perspiration centers, use several tablespoonsful to each quart
were false and misleading and by reason of the said statement


labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that
that the article when used as directed would possess antisep
would kill Staphyloccocus, the common pus-forming organism
as directed would act as an effective disinfectant for the purl
on the labels, whereas the article when used as directed did
septic properties, would not kill the Staphyloccocus, the con


t
1
I,

II


selling a
use. I
ection,


'unces to
especially
titutions,
there is
need to
with its
gents for
directionss


hands, face and
of warm water".
:s the article was
they represented
ie properties and
t, and when used
>oses so indicated
not possess anti-
mnon pus-forming


organism, and would not act as an effective disinfectant for the purposes so
indicated on the labels.
On January 14, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $50.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1370. Misbranding of Vapoo.
Co.). Plea of guilty.


This case was based on
defined by the Insecticide
to its alleged disinfecting
On December 27, 1934, t
New York, acting upon a
district court an informal


U. S. v. Benjamin T. Lake (Vapoo Products
Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1745. Sample no. 69812-A.)


a shipment of Vapoo, an insecticide and fungicide as
Act, the labels of which bore unwarranted claims as
and moth-proofing properties.
he United States attorney for the Southern District of
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
ion against Benjamin T. Lake, trading as the Vapoo


II







226


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I.F.


whereas when applied as so directed, it would not disinfect and would not
render mothproof rugs and upholstery.
On December 28, 1934, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court
imposed a fine of $25.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1371.

This
-arseni
On
of Call
district
tion, L
Insecti
nia in
terate(
The
tainted
arsenic
On I
compa:


Adnlteration of PariN green. U'. S. v. Los Angeles Chemnical Co. Plea
of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1734. Sample no. 29580-A.)
case was based on a shipment of Paris green that contained excessive
c in water-soluble form.
November 27, 1934, the United States attorney for the Southern District
ifornia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
t court an information against the Los Angeles Chemical Co., a corpora-
ios Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the
icide Act of 1910, on or about October 7, 1933, from the State of Califor-
to the State of Arizona, of a quantity of Paris green which was adul-
d.
article was alleged to be adulterated in that it was Paris green, and con-
arsenic in water-soluble form equivalent to more than 3% percent of
ous oxide.
December 10, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
ny and the court imposed a fine of $25.
M. L. WasoN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1372. Minbranding of Sentaromann. U. S. v. Velray, Inc. Plea of nuilty.
Sentence, $25. Fine remitted. (I. & F. no. 1744. Sample no. 71667-A.)
This case was based on a shipment of Sentaroma, an insecticide as defined
by law, the labeling of which contained unwarranted claims regarding its
alleged effectiveness as a moth repellent.
On November 19, 1934, the United States attorney for the Southern District
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against Velray, Inc., New York, N. Y., alleging
shipment by said company, on or about April 26, 1934, from the State of New
York into the State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of Sentaroma which was a
misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label
of the packages, "Moth Repellant ", was false and misleading, and by reason
of the said statement the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the
purchaser, since the article would not act as a moth repellent.
On November 22, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $25, which fine was remitted.
M. L. WasoN. Actinc Secretary of Aariculture.


1373. Allegred nlnbrunding of Thermpak Moth Preventive. U. S. v. Therm-
wvool Produets Co., Inc. Tried to the court. Directed verdict dis-
missing information. (I. & F. no. 1733. Sample nos. 67182-A, 68352-A.)
On November 14, 1934, the United States attorney for the Eastern District
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed to


Le dis
rookl.
S, 193z
Sabol
assac]


trict court
in, N. Y., c
4, from the
it February
husetts, of q


an Information against the Thermwool Products
charging shipment by said company on or about
State of New York into the State of Connecticul
27, 1984, from the State of New York into the
quantities of Thermpak Moth Preventive, which wa


Co., Inc.,
February
t and on
State of
s alleged


v


w








13u57-137]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


227


Misbranduling of
Plea of guilty.


Skat-a-Roach.
Fine, $10. (I.


U. S. v. Skat-a-Rat Corporation.
& F. no. 1731. Sample no. ($425-A.)


This case was based on an interstate shipment of Skat-a-Roach, the labels
of which contained false and misleading representations relative to its alleged
efficacy in the control of certain insects.
On October 24, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode
Island, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Skat-a-Rat Corporation, Providence,
R. I., alleging shipment by said company on or about March 1, 1934, from
the State of Rhode Island into the State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of
Skat-a-Roach which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the


Insecticide Act
The article w
" Guaranteed
* Fleas
wall cracks, int
of the bed and
be baited at th


of 1910.
as alleged
to Kill


to be misbranded
* Fleas


in that
* *


the following
Bedbugs *


statements,
* For


and Bedbugs Blow the powder thoroughly into floor and
o corners, beneath rugs and carpets, into cracks and crevices
around the baseboards. The basement and aUll floors should
e same time. Allow to remain as long as possible and repeat


when necessary. *
the label were false and n
article was labeled so as 1


Scientific
leading V
deceive i


represented that the article when used as
insecticide against fleas and bedbugs and w
insects; whereas the article when used as d
insecticide against fleas and bedbugs and


Contact
by reason of st
mislead the pu
directed would
would act as a con
directed would not
would not act a


Poison
lid sta
rchaser
act as
tact po
act as


s


", borne on
tements the
* since they
an effective
ison against
an effective


a contact


poison


against insects.
On November 22, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $10.


M. L.


WILsoN, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1375. Misbranding of Crystal Gas. U. S. v. Stanley Drug Co. Plea of nolo
contender. Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1736. Sample no. 69293-A.)
This case was based on a shipment of Crystal Gas, an insecticide as defined
by law, the labels of which bore unwarranted claims regarding its alleged


effectiveness


On No
of Penn.
filed in
corporate
April 5,
of a qua
meaning
branded


Moth


vem
sylv
the
on,


against moths anc
hber 28, 1934, the 1
ania, acting uponr
district court an
Philadelphia, Pa.,


1934, from the State
ntity of Crystal Gas,
of the Insecticide Ac
in that the following


Exterminator


Other insects


1
[2


Certain other insects.
united States attorney


for the Eastern District


a report by the Secretary of Agri
information against the Stanley Drug.
alleging shipment by said company on o
of Pennsylvania into the State of New
which was a misbranded insecticide wit
t of 1910. The article was alleged to
statements, "Crystal Gas Paradichloro


* Releases


* Fatal


* Crystal-Gas-Placed into an open flat


small cloth bags at the top of a
as a repellent to flying moths.
in a bureau drawer will give


Carpet Beetles.
tightly closed.
the larvae or ad
Other Insects. I
hv thc 11no f A i Cr


To protect clo
The gas vapors
ult worms that
coaches, ants an
fQAl-f(ac nianoarld


clothes' closet will give
A teaspoonful or two
the same results. *
thing (woolens, furs,
will penetrate through
may be present. *


Ld other i
in hna.lr a


Soff
in a
* *
etc.).
the
*


culture,
Co., a
r about
Jersey,
hin the
be mis-
benzene


Moths


container or into
gas vapors acting
cloth bag placed
For Moths and
Keep container
clothing and kill
For Roaches and


nsects may be entirely exterminated
f hnhAnrria annd hidnro- nlnoc whenrt.


1374.






























INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1357-1375


Astogen: N
Rose Manufacturing Co ...
Atlas Disinfectant
Outlet Sales Co., Inc .... _
Cedartex:
Coddington, E. D., Manufac-
turing Co-------.... --....... --


Rose


Manufacturing


Co -. --


Ciinoline
C. H. C. Chemical Co ...... -
Crystal Gas'
Stanley Drug Co-......--.-
Electric Moth Master:
Teco Manufacturing Corpora-
tion ...... ........_....
Florozone:
Florozone, Inc........ ---- -------
Kleinfeld's, Dr., Bird Lice Powder:
Paramount Pet Supply Co.,
Inc .. .. ... ... .. ... ..


Flea Powder:
Para mount


Supply


Inc -- -. .. .S -
Medicated Flea Shampoo:
Paramount Pet Supply Co.,
Inc .---. -... ----- --...--..- -
Medina Brand Process Blue Dust:
New York Insecticide Co.,


----- ---


- --a-------------------


('opper Arsenic Dust:
New York Insecticide Co.,
In ----....


. J. No.
1368
1366

1362
1368

1359

1375

1367
1369

1363

1363

1363

1360

1360


Mothex Cedarized
Odora Co.,
organic Cleanser:
United Stat


Tablets :
Inc -----.....- .... --


Chemical


Inc --------- ------ --


Paris green:
Los Angeles Chemical Co
Pine Disinfectant:
Chemical Compounding
portion -------------
Kohn Eugene ........
Reefer's No-Moth Sets:
Reefer-Galler, Inc.......


Refills:
Reefer-Galler, Inc
Savol Antiseptic:
Savol Chemical C
Sentaroma:
Velray. Inc-_
Skat-a-Roach:


Cor-
- -a--
- -


- -- -


- ----------


o0- --


Skat-a-Rat Corporation---..
Supersan Animal Soft Soap:
Chemical Compounding Cor-
poration --------.......... -..
Kohn, Eugene .-. ---...---......
Clortox:
Chemical Compounding Cor-
poration --...-....-.. -...-
Kohn, Eugene ....... ..
Thermpak Moth Preventive:
Thermwool Products Co., Inc.


-- a
a------


1364

1358
1371

1357
1357
1365
1365
1361
1372
1374

1357
1357

1357
1357
1373
1370
1370


Vapoo:


Lake, B. T_--- .
Vapoo Products Co-


,


I










































































































































































S





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
lliI 1 26 ll 2 08582 4851111111111111
3 1262 08582 4851