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:
AA00008549:00020

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text

77


'3


S


W.3., I. F. 13T6-1425


Issued April 1936


United


States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]
1376-1425


[Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., March 14, 1936]


1370. Misbranding of Star Liquid Lime Sulphurous Compound. U. S. v. Willt
Jesse Lindsey (Star Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. &
no. 1618. Sample no. 16642-A.)
This case was base& on an interstate shipment of a product which was
insecticide within the meaning of the law, and which contained inert ing
dients that were not declared on the label as required by law.
On July 17, 1934, the United States attorney for the Northern District
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in t
district court an information against William Jesse Lindsey, trading as t
Star Chemical Co., Arlington, Tex., alleging shipment by said defendant
or about June 20, 1932, from the State of Texas into the State of Georgia
a quantity of Star Liquid Lime Sulphurous Compound which was a misbrand
insecticide, other than Paris green and lead arsenate, within the meaning
the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted complete
of inert substances or ingredients, that is to say, substances that do n
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects when used as directed, and t
name and the percentage amount of each of said inert substances present
the article were not stated plainly and correctly on the bottle label. T
information also charged a violation of the Food and Drugs Act reported
notice of judgment no. 24122 published under that act.
On December 5, 1934, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the cou
imposed a fine of $25 as penalty for violation of both acts.


am
F.\


an
re-


ly
'ot
he
in
he
in
irt


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.
t


1377. Misbranding of Apex Cresola Disinfectant. U. S. v. Apex Soap & Sanitary
Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs. (I. & F. no. 1766.
Sample no. 60885-A.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of a product which was mis-
branded because of unwarranted claims in the labeling regarding its alleged
disinfecting, germicidal, and sterilizing properties.
On February 6, 1935, the United States attorney for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
the district court an information against the Aper Soap & Sanitary Corporation,
P cT hnnn4,-~vvl 'Ofl n'Ilnnkrwn ce nl4T~yinmn A-ns. ,,-. A3 .- __ -t -l -_ ..







230


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


and vaults morning and night", "Cuspidors-Always use a solution of Disin-
fectant when cleaning cuspidors. Three tablespoonsful of Apex Cresola to one
gallon of water will sterilize and deodorize them and kill bacteria incident
to sputum. Leave a solution standing in the cuspidor", were false and mis-
leading, and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled so as
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that the said statements represented
that the article, when used for general disinfection in the dilution of three
tablespoonfuls to one pail of water, would act as an effective disinfectant and
germicide, and when used as directed would disinfect drains and outdoor vaults
and sinks, urinals, and water closets, and would sterilize cuspidors; whereas
the article, when used for general disinfection in the dilution of three table-


spoonfuls to one pail of water, w(
germicide, and when used as dirn
door vaults and would not disin
would not sterilize cuspidors.
The information also charged a
reported in notice of judgment no.
On April 2, 1935, a plea of gui
company and the court imposed
both acts.


would not act as an effective disinfectant and
ected it would not disinfect drains and out-
fect sinks, urinals, and water closets, and

violation of the Federal Caustic Poison Act
28, published under that act.
lty was entered on behalf of the defendant
a fine of $50 and costs for violation of


M. L.


1378. Adulteration and misbranding
Jansen (Jansen Soap & Chei
(I. & F. no. 1670. Sample no. 23
This case was based on an interest
trained a smaller proportion of active
inert ingredients than declared on th
ranted claims regarding the alleged di
On January 30, 1934, the United S
of California, acting upon a report
in the district court an information
Jansen Soap & Chemical Co., San
said defendant on or about August 24
the State of Nevada, of a quantity 'of


ated and mi
1910.
The artici
on the label,
represented


;branded


fungicide


with


WILSON, Acting


of Pine Disinfectant.
nical Co.). Plea of
753-A.)


it s.
Ut Sy.
guilty.


Agriculture.


v. Hans V.
Fine, $75.


ate shipment of a fungicide which con-
ingredients and a larger proportion of
e label. The labeling also bore unwar-
sinfecting properties of the article.


states attorney for
by the Secretary
against Hans V. J
Francisco, Calif.,
, 1932, from the St
Pine Disinfectant
i the meaning of


the Northern District
of Agriculture, filed
ansen, trading as the
alleging shipment by
:ate of California into
which was an adulter-
the Insecticide Act of


e was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements appearing
"Inert, approximate 12% water Total active approximate 88%",
that its standard and quality were such that it contained not less


than 88 percent of active ingr
ingredients, whereas the strei
professed standard and quality
much less than 88 percent of a
12 percent of inert ingredients.
Misbranding was alleged for
mately 12% water Total Ac
For Washing Floors, Woodwi
teaspoons-ful to a pail of water.
A proportion of one part to
ant For C
of water", borne on the can i
of the said statements the art


edien
ngth
y un
active

the r


ts and not
and purity
der which
ingredients,


more than 12 percent of inert
of the article fell below the
it was sold, since it contained
and contained much more than


eason that the statements


Approximate 88%,
Sinks, Refrigerators,


* Fo
hundred
0ols, *
were fal
was lab(


r An Aid I
parts of
* one
Ise and mi
eled so as


-. -


. "Inert, Approxi-


Disinfectant
etc.,-three


* *
or four


n Ordinary Disinfection.
water", and "Disinfect-
pint to five gallons
leading, and by reason
to deceive and mislead


Secretary of


1
e







1376-4425]


1379.


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


Adulteration and misbranding of Newco. U. S.
(Newco Laboratories). Plea of nolo contender.
no. 1701. Sample no. 58914-A.)


231


v. Milton
Fine, $15.


Newman
(I. &. F.


This case involved a product that contained a smaller proportion of the
active ingredient and a larger proportion of inert ingredients than declared
on the label. The labeling was further objectionable because of unwarranted
claims regarding its alleged disinfectant properties.


On June 11, 193
Pennsylvania, acti
in the district cou
Newco Laboratorie
on or about Decem
of New Jersey, of
branded fungicide
The article was
Ingredient Sodium
borne on the label,
it contained an ac


4,'
ng
rt
s,


the United States attorney
upon a report by the Se
an information against Mil
Philadelphia, Pa., alleging


for the Eastern District of
cretary of Agriculture, filed
ton Newman, trading as the
shipment by said defendant


iber 7, 1933, from the State of Pennsylvania into the f
a quantity of Newco, which was an adulterated and
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "A
Hypochlorite 5% by Wt. Inert Ingredients 95% by
, represented that its standard and quality were such
tive ingredient, sodium hypochlorite, in the proportion


state
mis-


ctive
Wt."
that
n of


5 percent by weight, and contained inert ingredients, i. e., substances that
do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi, in the proportion of not
more than 95 percent by weight; whereas the strength and purity of the article
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since it


contained less than 5 percent of sodium hypochlorite by weight, and conta
inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 95 percent by weight.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Active In
dient Sodium Hypochlorite 5% by Wt. Inert Ingredients 95% by Wt."
"Disinfectant For use on Drain Pipes", were false
misleading, and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled s
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained an active ingred
sodium hypochlorite, in a proportion less than 5 percent by weight, and
trained inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 95 percent by weight,
it would not disinfect drain pipes when used as directed.
On June 17, 1935, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contender, and
court imposed a fine of $15.


ined

igre-
and
and
o as
ient,
con-
and

the


M. L.


WILsoN, Acting Secretary of


Agricult ure.


1380. Misbranding of compound larkspur lotion. U. S. v. Richard Gailliard
Dunwody. Plea of guilty. Sentence suspended and defendant placed
on probation for one year. (I. & F. no. 1705. Sample no. 39968-A.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of an insecticide that con-


trained undeclared
On October 12,
of Georgia, acting
district court an i
R. G. Dunwody &
20, 1983, from the


compound


larkspur


inert
1934,
upon
nform
Sons,
State


ingredients.
the United


lotion,


meaning of the Insecticide
The article was alleged t
inert substances, namely, sub
acid, which substances do n(
the name and percentage am
was not stated plainly and
were the name and percent


States


attorney


port by the Secretary
n against Richard Gai
going shipment by said
}eorgia into the State
which was a misbran
Lct of 1910.
o be misbranded in th


the Northern


of Agriculture,
lliard Dunwody,
defendant on or
of Florida, of a
ided insecticide


iat it


(


'stances other than alkaloids c
ot prevent, destroy, repel, or
ount of each inert ingredient
correctly on the bottle label;
ge amount of each substance


insisted
f larkspur
mitigate
present in
nor, in 1
or ingred


District


filed in the
trading as
a mt July
quantity of
within the


partially of
r and acetic
insects, and
the article
ieu thereof,
client of the


11

a
(







232


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I. F.


branded since the label contained unwarranted claims regarding its effective-
ness in the control of insects; and it was represented to be a mild poison and
harmless when breathed, whereas it was very poisonous and was harmful if
breathed; it contained inert ingredients other than that declared, and was
short weight.
On November 9, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of Mary-
land, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against the B. & B. Exterminators, Inc., Baltimore, Md.,
alleging shipment by said company on or about October 26, 1933, from the State
of Maryland into the District of Columbia, of a quantity of Black Eagle Roach
Exterminator which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide, other than
-Paris green and lead arsenate, within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of
1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement, "Active Mat-


ter 90%
that its
substancec
not less
not prev
than 10


Inert Matter (flo
standard and quali
es that prevent, de,
than 90 percent; a


, destroy,
recent, and


repel,
that


strength and purity fell bel
it was sold, since it contain
percent, it contained inert
cent, and it contained iner
Misbranding was alleged
90% Inert Matter (flour)
Roaches and Water Bugs


ur)


10%"


, borne on


the package label,


represented


ty were such that it contained active matter, i. e.,
stroy, repel, or mitigate insects, in the proportion of
nd contained inert matter, i. e., substances that do
or mitigate insects, in the proportion of not more
flour was the only inert ingredient; whereas its
ow the professed standard and quality under which
ed active matter in a proportion much less than 90
matter in a proportion much greater than 10 per-


t ingredients other than flour.
for the reason that the statements,
10%". "Roach Exterminator For


Will Exterminate


Roaches or


"Active Matter
Exterminating


Water Bugs


* *


For Exterminating Roaches and Water Bugs The roaches or water
bugs will run about very excitedly for two or three hours after the exterminator
is applied, It is highly important that a second light application
should be made about fifteen days after the first in order to kill any young
roaches that may have hatched from an egg sack after the first extermination.
This preparation is absolutely guaranteed to exterminate roaches of any kind
if used as directed", "This powder is intended for roaches and water bugs,


but is a cure-a


11", "This preparation is mildly toxic to h


cause nausea if taken


be covered so
used. However
the powder is
words this pov
soda fountains
dusted into the
tains 8 ounces


that 1
r, the
being
7der ]


the dust
small q
properly
may be


large quantity on
will not settle on


uantity
used
safely


or anywhere else.
air, but is absolutely;
* Contents


7


of dust


food.
it when


that


would


human beings
Therefore foo
this powder
1 settle on fo


would not do any harm if
used in kitchens, pantrys,
This powder will cause
y harmless to breathe", "Th
8 Oz. Net". borne on the


eaten,
restau.
sneezi


and will
d should
is being
od when
in other
rants, at
ng when


is package con-
package labels,


were false and misleading, and by reason
was labeled so as to deceive and mislead
sented that the article contained 90 percent
of inert matter and that flour was the on
exterminate roaches and water bugs und
cure-all: that it was mildly toxic to human


to breathe; and that each
it contained less than 90
10 percent of inert matter
1i rrrflvh 1I l +- nr\+/^nwrn 4 nnr 4-n\


package contain
percent of active


the said


statements


the article


the purchaser, in that they repre-
t of active matter, and 10 percent
ly inert ingredient; that it would
er all conditions; that it was a
beings and was absolutely harmless
d 8 ounces of the article; whereas
e matter; it contained more than


and contained inert ingredients other than flour;
rc'nnhc n.nA :n ro>+4"n h1nrcs ,,* l r. nil r'*/nrA5dnfc ,yhav&


ent
pe








1376-1425]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


233


claims regarding
insects and fungi.


On
Jerse
court
ship
from
Kilru


October
y, acting
an info
aent by
the Sta
st which


2 ,
'i?,
upon
rmati
said
te of
was


the alleged


effectiveness


the article


the control


1934, the United States attorney for the District of New
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
on against Morris B. Reade, Inc., Belleville, N. J., alleging
company on or about March 4, 1932, and March 1, 1933,
New Jersey into the State of Maryland, of quantities of
a misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning


of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be
metallic 1.50%", "Destroys *
As an Insecticide: For *
to 35 parts water", "Kilrust C
preventive and check of the co
rhinum. Black Spot on Roses
For rust on Carnations, one p
flowers: Antirrhinum, one par


the bottle label,
the article was
contained copper
not act as an
would not act
rust on carnati<
common forms
On January 2


company.


were false a
labeled so
r, as metal
effective in
as a check
ans and anti
of fungous
5, 1935, a pl


nd m
as tc
Ic, in
sectic
and
rrhin
disea
ea of


misbranded in that the statements,
* Mealy Bug Red Spi
Mealy Bug one pa


combinedd Fungicide and Inse
mmon forms of Rust on Car
and some forms of Fungus
art 'Kilrust' to 35 parts wa
t of 'Kilrust' to 50 parts of


is


i


leading, andm
deceive and
t proportion
le against


d


I.
t


~cticide


nations
Diseas
ter; F(
water'


"Copper


er


* t


rt 'KilrusVt'
A positive
and Antir-
es. *


3
I,


by reason of the said
mislead the purchase
less than 1.50 percent


red spider


r
I

er
t,


mealy


positive preventive of the common
um, or of black spot on roses, or of
ses of flowers when used as directed
guilty was entered on behalf of the


all other
borne on
statements
, since it
it would
bug, and
forms of
the more
d.
defendant


On April 13, 1935, the court imposed a sentence of a $100 fine.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1383. Misbranding of Goshen Glow Shampoo, Dermatone, Mange Relief, andt
B. I. S. Ointment. U. S. v. J. F. DeVine Laboratories, Inc. Plea of
guilty. Fine $150. (I. & F. nos. 1735, 1754. Sample nos. 43736-A, 43745-A,
65957-A, 65958-A.)
This case involved shipments of Dermatone, Mange Relief, and B. I. S.


Ointment th
ing the effe
of the B.
The product
information,
On Marci
of New Yo
in the distri
New York,
and Novemi
Jersey of qi
which were
of 1910, an
into the Sta
misbranded
The artic
of an inert
or mitigate


e lal
active
I. S
s an
, con
i 29,
rk,
ct co
N. Y
ber 1
anti


eling of which contained false and misleading claims
mess of the articles in the control of mange; the
. Ointment also containing unwarranted germicidal


a shipment of


tainted
1935,
acting
urt an


Goshen


Glow


Shampoo,


also covered


undeclared inert ingredients.
the United States attorney for the Southern Di
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
information against the J. F. DeVine Laboratories,


., alleging shipment
4, 1933, from the St
ties of Goshen Glow


by said company on
ate of New York into
Shampoo, Dermatone,


oI


regard-
aabeling
claims.
by the


strict
filed
Inc.,


* about October &
the State of New
and Mange Relief


misbranded insecticides within the meaning of the Insectici
d on or about November 6, 1933, from the State of Nev
te of New Jersey of a quantity of B. I. S. Ointment which
insecticide and fungicide within the meaning of said act.
les were alleged to be misbranded in that they consisted
substance, water, which substance does not prevent, destroy


inse


cts, a


substance so present
on the label; nor,


nd the


therein
in lieu


name and percentage amount of the said
were not stated plainly and correctly, or
thereof, were the name and percentage a


ide Act
SYork
was a


partly
repel,
inert
at all.,
mount


a


w


C
P








234


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N1J., I. F.


as an effective


relief


I. S. Ointment


was


for all


types


not a germicidal


varieties of
ointment,


mange


of dogs


lid not possess


germicidal


properties, and did not possess value in the treatment of demodectic mange.
The information also charged that the B. I. S. Ointment was misbranded in
violation of the Food and Drugs Act reported in notice of judgment no. 24542,


published i
On April
company a
the charge


under


that


, 1935, a plea


Ad the court
for violation


of guilty was


fines


imposed


of the Insecticide


entered


on behalf of


on all charges.


Act of


1910


the defendant


assessed


was $150.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1384. Misbranding of High
Smith (Dovola Co.)
Sample no. 65783-A.)


Jene Deordorizer
SPlea of guilty.


Moth
Fine


Killer.
, $25.


U. S.
(I. &


v. John J.
F. no. 1737.


This


case


warranted
control of


involved


claims
moths,


represented.
On November


of Illinois,


district


16, 1934,


acting upon a


court


., Chicago,
1934. from


an insecticide


the labeling
I because it


the United
report by


an information


against


Ill., alleging ship
the State of Illinois


High Jene Deodorizer


Moth Killer,


ent


which


regarding


was


was


misbranded


its alleged


not composed


because


effectiveness


of chlorine


in the


crystals


States attorney for the Northern District


the Secretary


John


into thi
which


the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


e


of Agriculture, filed


trading


J. Smith,


defendant


State of Missouri


in the


as the Dovola


on or about


of a


March


quantity


was a misbranded insecticide within


The
Proofini


article


was


Chlorine


alleged
Crystals


to be misbranded


* ?*


in that


* Overstuffed


the statements,
Furniture". "


"Moth
Chlorine


Crys


talks"


borne on


"Stronger


the label,


more


effective


than


anything


on the market"


were false and misleading, and by reason of the said state-


ments the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since


it would
furniture,


not act


would


as an


effective


insecticide


not moth-proof furniture


against


when


moths


used


overstuffed


as directed


not consist of chlorine crystals, but did consist of paradichlorobenzene


it did
with a


small amount


of per fume;


and it was not stronger and more effective against


moths than anything on


On February


1935,


the market.


the defendant entered


osed a fine of $25.


a plea of guilty


the court


M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1385.


Misbranding
Fine, S25.


of Havok.


U. S.


& F. no. 1739.


v. Henry


& Henry,


Sample no. 58174-A.)


Inc.


Plea of


guilty.


involved an interstate


branded because it


sonous.
On December


of New
district


was


10, 1934,


represented


United


shipment of an insecticide


to be


nonpoisonous


States attorney


which


whereas


was mis-


was


for the Western District


York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the


court


an information


alleging shipment 1:
State of New York


which


was


Act of 1910.


The
sonous


article


a misbranded


was alleged


hnrn' nn


against


company


the State of
Insecticide


Henry


on or abc


& Henry,
aut October


Massachusetts


within


to be misbranded


1wU Q


fn 1c~a ~mnc1


*J tS ~ **-'** t~* ~ a A-, '~> A~e WV IA. *-~ 'at


as


the meaning


Ln that tl
misleading.


[nc.,
17,


Buffal
1933,


a quantity


o, N.
from


of Havok


of the Insecticide


he statement


"Non-Poi-


reason


of the


This case







1376-1425]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


235


On February 21, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Massa-


chusetts, acting upon a repo
district court an information
rence, Mass., alleging shipm4
1934, from the State of Mas
a quantity of Germ-X, whi<
within the meaning of the In
The article was alleged to
appearing in the labeling,
washing floors, paints, windo


rt
ag
ent
sac
ch
seci
be
'Di
ws,


by the Secretary o
ainst the American
by said company
husetts into the St
was a misbranded
ticide Act of 1910.


misbranded in
sinfectant *
, glasses, dishes,


f Agriculture
Lanolin Corp
on or about
ate of New I
insecticide


that
*
etc.,


, filed in the
oration, Law-
February 13,
Iampshire, of
and fungicide


the following statements
General Cleaning: When
use one tablespoonful to


a gallon of water. Floors, Kitchen tables, Cupboards, etc., Wash
thoroughly with dilution of two tablespoonfuls to a quart of water", "Disin-
fectant Milk Bottles:-Wash and brush with hot water and soda
and thoroughly rinse with Germ-X Solution 'C', Pails, Cans, Etc.:-Wash with
hot water and soda and thoroughly rinse with Germ-X Solution 'C'. Allow
to dry without wiping. Refrigerators:-After washing and scrub-
bing spray thoroughly over walls, floors and shelves with Solution 'C' *


Cheese
utensils
clean.
at least
utensils


Factory:-Solutio
as an aid after
* Keep ba
once a week. At
with Solution


n 'C' should be used freely for moulds, presses and
washing and scrubbing in keeping them sweet and
rns and stables clean by spraying with Solution 'G'
the same time wash or spray mangers and drinking
'A'. Poultry Spray roosts and


dropping boards with Solution 'F'. Wash all
'A'. Thoroughly wash and disinfect
Solution 'G.' Do this between each hatch. *


this powerful germicide in
sanitary home. In
Germ-X should be put right


especially
destroy ge
and clean
linen and
be sterilize
water. In
bage cans


marbles


tiles and


drinking utensils with Solution
incubators and brooders with
* The housewife who uses


her wash water will always
Swashing Floors and Wal
in with the washing water w
concrete, are to be cleaned",


rms. Germ-X the germ killer *
by adding a few drops of Germ-X to each
similar articles that have been used in sick
ed with Germ-X in the washing process-two
the Kitchen-Germ-X is most effective in ste]
and sinks and also makes for ster


qi
ro
ta


have
ls-One


clear
tabl<


hen floors or
"General pov
* Keep milk
uart. *
)oms should a
blespoons to 1


rilizing


ile


as a disinfectant for drain pipes and traps. *
Germ-X it drives out, kills bacteria quickly a
absolute proof of its harmlessness Germ-X The
no poison", "Solution 'A' sprayed on animals will kill h
and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it would
paints, windows, glasses, dishes, etc.; would not disinfect
boards, etc.. when used as directed: it would not act as


fectant
linen, a
and sin
directed
hog lice


I
when used in the dilutions specified; it
nd similar articles that have been used
ks, drain pipes and traps, and articles


; it was not harmless
when used as directed.


did contain


n and
spoon
walls,
ver to
sweet
Bed
always
tub of


* Gar-


conditions. It acts
In the Bathroom-
nd effectively", "As
fact that it contains
og lice", were false
article was labeled
not disinfect floors,
kitchen tables, cup-
an effective disin-


would not sterilize milk, bed
in sick rooms, garbage cans
in bathrooms, when used as


a poison


would not


The information also charged violations of the Food and Drugs Act reported
in notice of judgment no. 24540, published under that act.
On March 25, 1935, a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf of the
defendant company, and the court imposed fines on all charges, the fine on the


count charging violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910, being $1.







236


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I. F.


Plantox, which was a misbranded insecticide
ticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded
is the easy and sure way to kill many leaf-ea
the following: Red Spider *


within the meaning of the Insec-
in that the statements, "Plantox
tting or chewing insects, including
Grape Berry Moth *


Oriental Fruit Moth", "Handy Plantox Death to most insect pests", "Handy
Plantox Harmless to Humans or Animals", borne on the package label, were
false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the article was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it would not kill red
spiders, grape berry moths, and oriental fruit moths; would not act as an
effective insecticide against most insect pests when used as directed; and it
was not harmless to humans and animals, but did contain a poisonous sub-
stance.
On March 28, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $25.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

1388. Adulteration and misbranding of Pestroy. UI. S. v. The Sherwin-Williams
Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (1. & F. no. 1748. Sample nos. 67902-A,
67914-A.)


This case was based on an interstate shipment of a product ti
less active ingredients, less arsenate of lead, less total arsenic,
percentage of inert ingredients than declared on the label. The
further objectionable because of unwarranted claims regarding
effectiveness of the article in the control of insects.
On January 7, 1935, the United States attorney for the Norther
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, file
trict court an information against the Sherwin-Williams Co., trading


Ill., alleging shipment by said company on o
State of Illinois into the State of New York
an adulterated and misbranded insecticide
arsenate, and fungicide within the meaning
The article was alleged to be adulterat
Active Ingredients 25.5% Arsenate of Lead


percentum of
borne on the
that it conta
25.5 percent;
percent; cont
proportion of
proportion of
the article fe
sold, since it
contained less
percent of tot


Metallic Arsenic) not
can label, represented
ined total active ingre
contained arsenate of 1
ained arsenic expresse
not less than 2.80 perc


ot more
below th
contained
han 14.5
arsenic


less
tha
dien
ead
d as
?nt:


iat contained
and a larger
labeling was
the alleged

n District of
d in the dis-
g at Chicago,


r about February 25, 1934, from
of a quantity of Pestroy which
, other than Paris green and
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
ed in that the statements, "T
14.5% Total Arsenic expresss(
an 2.80% Inert Ingredients 74.5


t its standard
ts in the prop
in the proporti


perc
and


(
(


than 74.5 percent; wh
ie professed standard
less than 25.5 percei
percent of arsenate o1
(expressed as percent


trained more than 74.5 percent of inert
Misbranding was alleged for the r
borne on the can label were false an
statements the article was labeled so
since it contained less total active in


ntun
conta
ereas
and
it of
f lend
um o0


1
I


and
portion
on of
metal
inert
strer


the
was.
lead


(
I
I!


quality were si
Sof not less ti
not less than 1
liec arsenic) in
ingredients in
Lgth and purity


)tal
as

uch
han
L4.5
the
the
of


quality under which it was
total active ingredients, it
I, it contained less than 2.80
1 metallic arsenic). and con-


ingredients.
eason that the above-quoted statements
d misleading, and by reason of the said
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
gredients, less arsenate of lead, less ar-


senic (expressed
inert ingredients
further reason t


as percentum of metallic arsenic), and a larger percentage of
than declared on the label. Misbranding was alleged for the


ii


a


It the following statements, "Pestro


y A combination


of


I
t








1376-1425]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


237


or attack the above-named plants and trees; whereas it would not act as
effective control against a majority of the insects commonly found infesting
attacking the said plants and trees, when used as directed.
On February 18, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defend
company and the court imposed a fine of $25.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture


ant


1389. Adulteration and misbranding of Reliable Roach and Ant Destroyer. U. S.
v. Henry J. Edwards (Whippet Sales Co.). Plea of nolo contender.
Fine, $10. (I. & F. no. 1749. Sample no. 71749-A.)
This case involved an insecticide which contained active ingredients in a
proportion much less, and inert ingredients in a proportion much greater, than
those declared on the label.
On January 4, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Massachu-
setts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against Henry J. Edwards, trading as the Whippet Sales
Co., Boston, Mass., alleging shipment and delivery for shipment by said de-
fendant, on or about May 7, 1934, from the State of Massachusetts into the
State of Rhode Island, of a quantity of Reliable Roach and Ant Destroyer


which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide within the meaning of
the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Active In-
gredient, Sodium Fluoride 50% Inert Ingredient 50%", borne on the carton
label, represented that it contained an active ingredient, sodium fluoride, in
the proportion of not less than 50 percent, and contained an inert substance in
the proportion of not more than 50 percent; whereas the strength and purity
of the article fell below the professed standard and quality under which it
was sold, since it contained sodium fluoride in a proportion much less than 50
percent and contained an inert substance or ingredient in a proportion much
greater than 50 percent.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Active Ingre-
dient, Sodium Fluoride 50% Inert Ingredient 50%", borne on the label, were
false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the article was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained sodium
fluoride in a proportion much less than 50 percent, and contained an inert
ingredient in a proportion much greater than 50 percent.
On April 8, 1935, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contender, and the
court imposed a fine of $10.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1390. Misbranding of Old Nick's Seed Treatment.
(Old Nick Seed Treatment Co.). Plea of
1750. Sample no. 41534-A.)
This case involved an insecticide the labelin
ranted claims regarding its alleged effective
insects. The labeling was further objectionable
sented to be nonpoisonous, whereas it was poison
On March 14, 1935, the United States attornu


U. S. v. Ivan James Nickerson
guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. no.


kg of which contained
ess in the control of
Since the product was


nous.
y for the


Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul
trict court an information against Ivan James Nickerson
Nick Seed Treatment Co., Pattonsburg, Mo., alleging sh
fendant on or about May 15, 1933, from the State of Mi


of Iowa, of a quantity of Old Nick's Seed Trea
l inCmn'r44n-I / in .r44-1-m Tl n 4-l^a fc l /CtflnnC ^i 14! /i 4-l/n Tn-rantn/ ^S4 i-I


tment which
*f. A ^.a n^-C I


unwar-
certain
repre-


Western District of
ture, filed in the dis-
, trading as the Old
lipment by said de-
ssouri into the State
h was a misbrandedf
.-i r


*


L








238


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N J., I. F.


1391. Misbranding of Industrial Pine ]
dustrial Laboratories. Plea
no. 1752. Sample no. 62260-A.)
This case was based on an inters
germicide which was misbranded beca
ing regarding its alleged effectiveness
further objectionable since the article
it was not nontoxic.
On January 17, 1935, the United Stat


acting
court
orator
May 4
quanti
within
The


upon a report
an information
ies, Baltimore,
, 1934, from tlhe
ty of Industria
the meaning of
article was all


appearing in the
advantages over
tive", "Disinfecta
feetant *
of full strength
For Disinfecting


allow


by
aga


the Secreta
inst Ira M.


Disinfectant. U. S. v. Ira M. lAppel (In-
of guilty. Fine, $25 and costs. (I. & F.

tate shipment of a product sold as a
use of unwarranted claims in the label-
s as a disinfectant. The labeling was
was represented to be nontoxic, whereas

es attorney for the District of Maryland,
ry of Agriculture, filed in the district
Lippel, trading as the Industrial Lab-


Md., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about
State of Maryland into the State of West Virginia, of a
1 Pine Disinfectant which was a misbranded fungicide
Sthe Insecticide Act of 1910.
eged to be misbranded in that the following statements


labeling, "It is non-toxic", "Pin
many other common disinfectants
nt For Drip Machines


e Disinfectant has certain
it is more effec-
use a 4% solution. Disin-


It is valuable for use in Drainage Pipes.
Pine Disinfectant into the pipes several


Rooms,


stand"


we


use the full strength Pi
re false and misleading,


ie Dis


infec
by r


Pour 3 to
times ea
tant in o
eason of


4 ounces
ch week.
pen pans
the said


statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
since they represented that the article was nontoxic and was more effective
than many common disinfectants, that the said article would disinfect when


used in drip machines min a 4-percent
disinfect drainage pipes and rooms:
was not more effective than many c
when used in drip machines in a 4
drainage pipes and rooms when use(
The information also charged a vi
in notice of judgment no. 24541, publ:
On February 7, 1935, the defend
imposed a fine of $25 and costs on e:


dilution, and when used as directed would
h


f
xereas the article was not nontoxic, it
on disinfectants, it would not disinfect
cent dilution, and would not disinfect
directed.


(


)n of the Food and Drugs Act reported


guilty


the court


; w
omm
-per
d as
)lati


wished under that act.
nt entered a plea of
ach charge.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1392. Adulteration and misbranding of Spareo Insect Powder. U. S. v. Charles
B. Fretwell. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1753.
Sample no. 49221-A.)
This case involved a product that was adulterated and misbranded since it
contained a smaller proportion of sodium fluoride and a larger proportion of
inert ingredients than declared on the label. The article was further mis-
branded since it contained inert ingredients other than that declared, it was
labeled with unwarranted claims regarding its alleged effectiveness in the
control of certain insects, and failed to bear on the label a declaration of the
inert ingredients.
On December 17. 1934. the United States attorney for the Western District


of South Carolina,
in the district court
Sparco Laboratories


on or about Sep
State of Florida
~~ ^


tei
of


acting upon ,
an informati
, Spartanbur
nber 1, 1933,
a quantity of


1 report by
on against
g, S. C., al
from the
Sparco In


the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
Charles B. Fretwell, trading as the
leging shipment by said defendant
State of South Carolina into the
sect Powder which was an adulter-








1876-1425]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


239


false


misleading,


reason


of the said


labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
than 66 percent of sodium fluoride, it contained more


it contained inorganic impurities in addition to t
an effective insecticide against mites, sticktight
when used as directed. Misbranding was alleged
the article consisted partly of inert substances, na
sodium fluoride, which inert substances do not
mitigate insects, and the name and percentage a
substances present in the article were not plainly


package label
each ingredie
percentage of
on the label.
On February
the court imp


lc,
flea
for
mel


statements


the article


was


since it contained less
than 34 percent of talc,
and it would not act as
s, and all other insects
the further reason that
y, substances other than


prevent, destroy, repel, or
mount of each of the inert
and correctly stated on the


; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount of
nt of the article having insecticidal properties, and the total
the inert substances present therein, stated plainly and correctly


y 19,
osed


1935, the defendant entered a
a fine of $25.


of nolo contender,


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1393. Misbranding of Cedar Vaporator. U. S. v. Galree Products Co. (Regal
Products Co.) Morris S. Galler, and Eugene J. Reefer. Pleas of guilty.
Fines, $150. (I. & F. no. 1756. Sample no. 71640.)
This case involved an insecticide which was misbranded because of unwar-
ranted claims in the labeling regarding its alleged effectiveness in the control
of moths.
On February 28, 1935, 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 the Galree Products Co., a corporation,
also trading under the name of the Regal Products Co., and Morris S. Galler
and Eugene J. Reefer, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendants
on or about May 1, 1934, from the State of New York into the State of Massa-
chusetts, of a quantity of Cedar Vaporator, which was a misbranded insecticide


I
(
14


that th
feet. 1
reason
mislead
directed


the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
article was alleged to be misbranded in that t
ing in the labeling, (carton) "Cedar Vaporator
Months Important For real moth


tor'
titlee
ons
2.


in every closet.
) "Cedar Vapo


Read
Punch


Carefully
hole in


through this hole.
4. Replace bottle
e bottle sets solidly
io confine fumes, ke
of the said state
Sthe purchaser, sin
1, would kill moths


Use in
rator Kills Moths (
. 1. Remove the 1
center of bottle cai
. Hang the metal h(
in metal holder, pr
in the holder. Us
ep doors closed", we
ents the article wa
ce they represented


and


would


hie following statements
Kills Moths Cedarizes
protection use 'Cedar


space as large as 75 cubic feet"
3edarizes for 12 Months *
)ottle carefully from the metal


).
ol
es
;e
r
.s


Be sure the


liquid


is clearly


der on the baseboard of clothes
ss down as far as possible so
in space as large as 75 cubic
e false and misleading, and by
labeled so as to deceive and
that the article, when used as


as an effective


insecticide agal!


moths for 12 months; whereas it would not kill moths and would not act a
an effective insecticide against moths for 12 months when used as directed.


On April 8, 1935, the defendants
imposed fines totaling $150.


entered


pleas


of guilty,


the court


M. L. WrILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


00.4 *t...~,.... ~S ,.S fl..~4 fl fltt fl.....~..>. Er ~ -- ------------------------* -- -


within
The
appear
for 12
Vapors
and (b
Direct
holder.
visible
closet.


t








240


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


clientt of the
label; nor,
-substance o:
total percent
;plainly or c<
On April
.company an


article
in lieu
r ingred
tage of
correctly,
8 1935,
d the co'


we3
th
ien
the
or
a
urt


re not stated plainly or correctly, or at all, on the carton
ereof, were the name and percentage amount of each
t of the article having insecticidal properties, and the
inert substances or ingredients present therein stated
at all, on the label.
plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
imposed a fine of $25.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1395. Misbranding of Merax Mercury Cyanide Solution. U. S. v. Dental Research
Laboratories and Sales Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $40. (I. &
F. no. 1758. Sample no. 48964-A.)
This case involved a product which was misbranded because of unwarranted
-claims in the labeling regarding its alleged sterilizing properties. The label-


ing was further obj
borax is effective in
in the article were n
On January 18, 1
acting upon a report
an information aga
tion, Portland, Oreg
22, 1934, from the S
of Merax Mercury (
,the meaning of the
.The article was


actionable, since it conveyed the misleading impression that
the control of fungi, and since the inert ingredients present
ot declared.
935, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon,
t by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
inst the Dental Research Laboratories and Sales Corpora-
., alleging shipment by said company on or about January
tate of Oregon into the State of Washington, of a quantity
Cyanide Solution, which was a misbranded fungicide within
Insecticide Act of 1910.
alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Active


Ingredients
represented


tha
tor
'not
the
ing
-eys


t is to s
ax was
prevent
further
Solution
toscopes


Mercury


Cyanide 2.63%


borax


was contained


Borax


3.76%


". borne


in the article


on the bottle label


as an active


in


lay, that it would prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi;
not contained in the article as an active ingredient, since
t, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi. Misbranding was all
reason that the following statements on the bottle label, "A
n for Surgeon and Dentist To sterilize cutting inst
, bougies, sounds, rubber catheters, urethral catheters,


gloves, needles, syringes, di
the instruments thoroughly
in the solution from two t
kCutting edges and articles
or undiluted. Do
.cury Cyanide Solution as r
ing, and by reason of s
*V 1 ~- __* 1 1


mental hand pieces, scalers, 1
, the same,as you would fc
o five minutes after which
of rubber are not impaired
not sterilize aluminum ins
mercury affects aluminum",


iid statements
*i ._ _


)rushers, eti
)r boiling; t
they are re
by the solid
truments in
were false


the article was
j~ -- -_^ _


c., fir
:hen
ady
ition,
Mer
and


labeled s
J_ j j


gredient,
whereas
it would
eged for
Steriliz-
ruments,
rubber


.4
I

I'
I
0


deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they represented that the
when used as directed, would sterilize instruments and the articles s
in the label; whereas it would not sterilize instruments and other
specified in the said label, when used as directed. Misbranding was
for the further reason that the article consisted partially of inert sub
:and the name and percentage amount of each of the inert substances
in the article were not stated plainly and correctly on the bottle lab


in lieu thereof, were the name
the article having fungicidal (ba
of the inert substances present
the bottle label.
On April 25, 1935, a plea of


st clean
mmerse
for use.
diluted
ax Mer-
mislead-
> as to
article.
specified
articles
alleged
stances,
present
el; nor,


and percentage amount of each ingredient of
ctericidal) properties, and the total percentage
in the article stated plainly and correctly on


guilty was entered on behalf of the defend
/^ ^,-/ -S 0/AA


nt








1376-1425]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


241


Co., Inc., from New York, N.


Insecticide Act of
The article was
Shampoo for rugs
in one operation",
for rugs and uph
"Cleans, disinfects
kills moths *


1910.
alleged
and upi
"Cleans
olstery
", "The
foi


Y., and charging misbranding in violation of the


to be misbranded
iolstery cleans, br
, moth-proofs and
cleans, brightens
Vapoo Shampoo
r upholstery *


in that the statements, "The Vapooc
ightens, disinfects and moth-proofs"
disinfects", "The Vapoo Shampoo
and disinfects in one operation"
for upholstery *
* chairs, studio couches, sofa


pillows", "The wonder cleaner kills moths can be used on
* upholstered furniture, mattresses sofa pillows auto-
mobile upholstery upholstered chairs, divans, sofas, mattresses, auto
upholstery, etc.", appearing in the labeling, were false and misleading, and by
reason of the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mis-


lead the purcha,
used as directed
proof, and wou
holstery, matter
whereas the arl
holstery and wo
insecticide agail
mobile upholster
reason that the
other than cedi
sodium, and the
in the article w
in lieu thereof,
ingredient of th
total percentage
plainly and corr
On March 1,


;er, since
1 would d
Ld act as
isses, soft
icle when
uld not r,
ist moths


the said statements represented th
isinfect rugs and upholstery and
an effective insecticide against r
a pillows, automobile upholstery,
i used as directed would not disi
ender them moth-proof, would not
infesting upholstery, mattresses,


ry, divans, and sofas. Misbranding was
article consisted partially of inert subst
ar oils, phenols, soap and double phosp
name and percentage amount of each ir
'ere not plainly and correctly stated on
were the name and percentage amount
ie article having insecticidal or fungicid
of the inert substances or ingredients so
ectly on the label.
1935. no claimant appearing, judgment


entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary


at th
rend
noths
diva
nfect
act
sofa


alleged I
ances, i.
)hate, a
ert ingr


e article when
er them moth-
infesting up-
ns and sofas;
Srugs and up-
as an effective-
pillows, auto-
for the further
e., substances
nd fluoride of
edient present


the carton label; nor,
of each substance or
al properties, and the
present therein, stated

of condemnation was.


Agriculture.


1397. Adulteration and misbranding
Sprayer & Chemical Co., Inc.
1764. Sample no. 71666-A.)


of Niagara Viti Dust.
i Ple of guilty. Fine,


U. S.
$100.


v. Niagara.
(I. & I. no,


This case involved a product that was adulterated and misbranded, since it
contained a smaller proportion of monohydrated copper sulphate, a smaller
proportion of copper (as metallic), and a larger proportion of inert ingredients
than declared on the label.


On January
New York,
e district co
., Inc., Midd
april 20, 1934,
a quantity


brand
within
The
Hydral
74.00%
Copper
repress


d insecticide
the mean
article wa
ted Copper
Copper (
Sulphate
rnted that


,193
ting
t an
tort,
om t


5, the
upon
infor
N.Y.
he St


Niagara


United States attorney for the Western District
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
nation against the Niagara Sprayer & Chemical
, alleging shipment by said company on or about
ate of New York into the State of Massachusettsr


Dust,


which


an adulterated


mis-


, other than Paris green and lead arsenate, and a fungicide,


ng of the Insectici
s alleged to be a
Sulphate not les
as metallic) not
crystals 15.5%)",
it contained mono


de Act of 1910.
dulterated in that the stat
s than 11.00% Inert Ingred
less than 3.94% *
borne on the drums contain
hydrated copper sulphate in


ements, "Mono-
lients not over
(Equivalent ini
ing the article,
the proportion


I.
I
I

V


ie


- A- ji- %-/ r


I/ ^-J ~








242


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


3.94 percent
of 15.5 percent
On June 7,
company and


of copper, as metallic, and contain
t of copper sulphate crystals.
1965, a plea of guilty was entered
the court imposed a fine of $100.
M. L. WILSON, Acting


d


than


on behalf of

Secretary of


the equivalent

the defendant

Agriculture.


1398. Adulteration and misbrandtng o
Raynolds Co., Inc. Plea of
Sample no. 36568-A.)
This case involved a product which
it contained a smaller proportion of a
total arsenic (expressed as metallic),
ents than declared on the label. The
of unwarranted claims in the label


again
On
of Ill
distri
at CI
from
Duty
Paris
Insec


st certain i
February 6,
inois, acting
et court an :
icago, Ill., a
tlie State of
Spray whicli
green and


sects.


I

I


1935, the United S
upon a report by t
information against
leging shipment by
Illinois into the Sta
was an adulterate


lead


arsenate,


icide Act of 1910.


f Double-Duty Spray.
guilty. Fine, $T5.


was
rsena
and a
antic]
ing r


tat
he
th(
sai
te
d a


adulterated and
te of lead, a sma
larger proportion
e was further mi
regarding its alle


U. S. v. Devoe &
(I. & F. no. 1765.

misbranded, since
ller proportion of
of inert ingredi-
sbranded because
+ged effectiveness


es attorney for the Northern District
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
e Devoe & Raynolds Co., Inc., trading
id company on or about June 8. 1933,
of Wisconsin of a quantity of Double-
nd misbranded insecticide other than


a fungicide,


within


the meaning


The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Arsenate
of Lead 15.0% Inert Ingredients 74.0% Total Arsenic (expressed
as Metallic Arsenic) not less than 2.9%'", borne on the package label, repre-
sented that it contained not less than 15 percent of arsenate of lead, not more
than 74 percent of inert ingredients, and not less than 2.9 percent of total
arsenic (expressed as metallic arsenic) ; whereas the strength and purity of
the article fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was


sold,
taine(
arsen


nee it contained much less than 15 percent of arsenate of lead, it con-
much more than 74 percent of inert ingredients, and it contained total
(expressed as metallic arsenic) in a proportion much less than 2.0


percent.
Misbranding was


alleged


for the


reason


Lead 15.0% Inert Ingredients
Metallic Arsenic) not less than 2.9%
* For Spraying certain fruits or


gooseberrie
Duty Spra:
water. Fo
use 7 poun
tablespoon
Spray to 5


s ai
y t(
r st


d such vegetab
50 gallons of
rawherries, tom


ds of Devoe Double
;ful to 1 gallon of \
0 gallons of water wi


1 pound of Arsenate o
will control effectively
the above fruits and
pounds of Dernve Dou
a combination contain
a standard 4-4-50 Boi
and mislealing, and ill
so as to (deceive and
less than 15 percent


if Lead
Scerta
vegeta
ble Du
ing ap
rdeaux
iy areas
mislea
of ar


les as potato
water, or 9
toes, beets,


Duty
water.


that


74.0%
", "Do
berries
es, use
to 9%
cucumli


the statement
Total Arsenic
uble-Duty Spi
such as grapes
9 to 9% pound
tablespoonsful
bers, eggplant,


Spray to 50 gal
Seven pounds


produce a


Sand a s
in chewi'
Lbles. If
ty Spray
proximat
Mixture
on of th
: the pu
senate of


tandlard
ng insect
a strong
Sto 50 g
tlv 14 1
", borne
e said st
rchaser, a


mixture


3-3-50
s and m
ger mix
allons o
pounds
on the


atements


sit


lead, it


s, "Arsenate of
(expressed as
ay Insecticide
s, currants and
s Devoe Double
to 1 gallon of
pears, peppers:


llons of water, or 7 to 8
of Devoe Double Duty
containing approximately
Bordeaux Mixture, which
nany fungous diseases of
:ture is desired, use 9E


f
of


water, which will give
Arsenate of Lead and


packa


label


the article


nee the arti'cle c
containedd much


w~er(


was


contained
iutre thli


false
aheled
much
an 74


t


4
I
1
1
*


s







1376-1425]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


243


On March 15, 1935, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against James Good, Inc., trading at Philadel-
phia, Pa., alleging that said defendant had shipped in interstate commerce


)r about October 5, 1933, from the
Columbia, a quantity of a prod
. P.", which was adulterated and n
of 1910. The information further
, the defendant company sold ar
it was not adulterated and misbr


pound U. S. P.;
without having
commerce by t]


been


a or abo
altered


purchaser,


Jersey, under the label, "Compo
was adulterated and misbrand
and that the defendant, by re
and said guaranty, was amena
for the guaranty, would have a
The article was alleged to b
on the labels, "Liquor Cresol
15.00%", with respect to the
"Compound Solution of Cresol
remaining shipment, represent
according to the specifications
its strength and purity fell b


ut Janua


in an
from


lund
led ii
ason
ble t


ly


State of Pennsylvania into the


uact, labeled
isbranded in
charged that
id delivered
handed, a quan
ry 18, 1934, a


manner,


Philadelphia, Pa
Solution of Creso
n violation of th
of the said adu
o the prosecutii


ached to the sh
adulterated in
compound U. S.
product in one
J. S. P.", with


low


that the
the United


ip)per.
that
P.
ship
respe


article
States


the professed


District


"Liquor Cresol Compound
violation of the Insecticide
on or about November 11,
under a written guaranty
tity of Liquor Cresol Corn-
portion of the said article,
been shipped in interstate
t., into the State of New
1 U. S. P.", that the article
e Insecticide Act of 1910;
Ilteration and misbranding
i and penalties which, but


the statements appearing
* Water not over
aent, and the statement,
ct to the product in the
had been manufactured
Pharmacopoeia, whereas


standard


quality


under


which it was sold, since it did not contain the ingredients specified in the
pharmacopoeia, but other oil or other fatty material had been used in the
place of linseed oil, and a portion of the product contained more than 15
percent of water.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Liquor Cresol
Compound U. S. P. Water not over 15.00%" and "Compound Solution
of Oresol U. S. P.", were false and misleading, and by reason of the said state-
ments the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in
that it was not composed of the ingredients laid down in the pharmacopoeia,
since other oil or other fatty material had been substituted for linseed oil,
one of the ingredients specified in the United States Pharmacopoeia, and the
product in one shipment contained more water than specified in the pharma-
capoeia.
On June 21, 1935, a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf of the
defendant comnanv and the court imposed a fine of $25.


M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary


Sof


Agriculture.


1400. Misbranding of Fleavex, My-T-Mite Powder, and Dr. Brehm's Hartz Moun-
tain Antiseptic Bird Wash. U. S. v. The Hartz Mountain Products Co.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $130. (I. & F. no. 1768. Sample nos. 65977-A,
65978-A, 65979-A.)
This case was based on interstate shipments of two insecticides, Fleavex and
My-T-Mite Powder, and an insecticide and fungicide, Antiseptic Bird Wash.


The products in all shipments were misbranded
failure to declare the inert ingredients present.


were further
poisonous, but
unwarranted a
On April 5,


misbran
in fact
ntisepti(
1935, tl


ded because t
was poisonous
c claims.
e United Stat


because of short
The Fleavex and


weight and
Bird Wash


he former was represented to be non-
, and the labeling of the latter contained


attorney for the Southern District of


on o
of (
U. S
Act
1932
that


e







244


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


antiseptic when used as directed.
reason that the articles consisted p
dered pyrethrum stems, sand, and
root in the case of the Fleavex and
case of the bird wash; and the na
substance so present in the articles


the labels; nor,
substance havin
of the inert sub
The informati
violation of the
published under
On April 12,
company and ti
charging violati


Misbranding was alleged for the further
artially of inert substances, namely, pow-
the inactive portion of powdered derris
the My-T-Mite Powder; and water in the
me and percentage amount of each inert
were not stated plainly and correctly on


in lieu thereof, were the name and per
g insecticidal or fungicidal properties, a
stance plainly and correctly stated on t
on also charged that the antiseptic bird
Food and Drugs Act reported in notice
that act.
1935, a plea of guilty was entered on 1


he
on


centage amount of each
nd the total percentage
he labels.
wash was misbranded in
of judgment no. 24543,


ehalf of the defendant


court imposed fines on all charges, the fines on the counts
of the Insecticide Act of 1910 being $130.


WIlsoN, Acting Secretary of


:01. Misbranding of Key-Rite General Disinfectant. U. S. i
Chemical Manufacturing Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.
1769. Sample nos. 67295-A, 69862-A.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of a product wh


branded because of un
its alleged effectiveness
On February 5, 1935
Jersey, acting upon a r
trict court an informati
a corporation, Jersey (


warranted claims appearing in the
as an insecticide and disinfectant.
, the United States attorney for ti
report by the Secretary of Agricultu
on against the Interstate Chemical
)ity, N. J., alleging shipment by s&


Agriculture.


v. Interstate
(I. & F. no.
idch was mis-


labeling regarding


ie District of
re, filed in th
Manufacturin,
id company I


New
dis-
Co.,
n or


about January 16, 1934, from the State of New Jersey into the State of New
York, of a quantity of Key-Rite General 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 following statements


borne
Ordin
infect
Garba
water
place
were


the can
Mange


label,
* *


"Horses
* Dogs


Ordinary
* *t


I


ant Closets, drains. As an
ge cans. Wash with mixture of one
Every home, school, hotel,
should be scrubbed with a small quantit
false and misleading, and by reason of


was labeled so as to deceive and
that the article when used as di
all varieties of mange, indicated
as directed would disinfect d'rai
for garbage cans, when used in t
parts of water, and when used
would disinfect homes, schools, h
whereas the article when used a,
cide for all varieties of mange ii
not disinfect drains, it was not
would not disinfect homes, schc
places, when used in the dilutionr
The information also charged


Mange
Ordinary
aid i
part Di
restaura
y of Dih
the sai


* Hogs *
SMange" and "Dis-
n disinfecting *


isi
in
si]
d


mislead the purchaser i
reacted would act as an


infectant to 100 parts
t, hospital and public
nfectant in the water",
statements the article
n that they represented
effective insecticide for


by the term "Ordinary Mange", and when used
ns, and would act as an effective disinfectant
the proportion of one part of the article to 100


in a


small


otels, restau
s directed w(
idicated by
an effective
)ols, hotels,


quantity
rants, ho
miuld not
the term
disinfect
restaura


Sin the scrubbing
'spitals, and public
act as an effective
"Ordinary Mange"
ant for garbage ca
nts, hospitals, and


water,
places;
insecti-
, would
ns, and
public


Sand proportion indicated.
a violation of the Food and Drugs Act reported


in notice of judgment no. 24544, published under that act.
On February 15, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered


)n behalf of the de-


14


M. L.


on
ary







1376-1425]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


245


St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by said company on or about January 26, 1934,
from the State of Missouri into the State of Texas, and or about April 11,
1934, from the State of Missouri into the State of Arkansas, of quantities of
Purina Flea Powder, which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide,
other than Paris green and lead arsenate, within the meaning of the Insecticide
Act of 1910.


The article was
10% Inei
that its standard a
percent of derris ar
the strength and p
quality under which]
inert ingredients in
was alleged for the
10 percent of derris


Misbranding


was


* Inert Ingi
of the said stateme


alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Derris
rt Ingredients 23.5%", borne on the can label, represented
tnd quality were such that it contained not less than 10
id not more than 23.5 percent of inert ingredients; whereas
urity of the article fell below the professed standard and
h it was sold, since it contained no derris and did contain
a proportion much greater than 23.5 percent. Adulteration
further reason that the article was represented to contain
, whereas other substances had been substituted for derris.
alleged for the reason that the statements, "Derris 10%
:edients 23.5%", were false and misleading, and by reason
nts the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the


purchaser, since it contained
proportion much greater than
On April 29, 1935, a plea
company and the court impose


n
23
of
ed
M.


) derris and did contain
.5 percent.
guilty was entered on 1
a fine of $400 and costs.


L.


Sinert ingredients in a

behalf of the defendant


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1403. Adulteration and misbranding of B. P. A. Bean Dust. U. S. v.
Bridgeville Packing Association. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.
(I. & F. no. 1772. Sample nos. 74654-A, 74655-A.)
This case involved interstate shipments of an insecticide and fungicide which
contained smaller proportions of calcium arsenate, monohydrated copper sul-


phate, and total
than declared o
On March 13,
acting upon a r
an information
Bridgeville, Del
June 15, 1934,
quantities of B
insecticide and


arsenic as metallic, and a larger proportion of inert ingredients
n the label.
S1935, the United States attorney for the District of Delaware,


report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
against the Bridgeville Packing As
l., alleging shipment by said company


from the State of Delaware into
P. A. Bean Dust which was an
fungicide within the meaning of


The two shipments of the article were labeled: "B. P. A.
and "B. P. A. 'B' Brand Bean Dust", respectively.
The information charged adulteration of both brands


filed in the district court
sociation, a corporation,
on or about June 7 and
e State of Maryland of
Iterated and misbranded
Insecticide Act of 1910.


'A' Brand Bean Dust,


of the article in


the following statements on the labels, "Calcium Arsenate 19.5% Copper Me-
tallic (Monohydrated Copper Sulphate) 19.5%. Inert Ingredients 61.0%. Total
Arsenic as metallic 7.34%", with respect to the "A" brand; and "Calcium
Arsenate 9.5% Copper Metallic (Monohydrated Copper Sulphate) 14.5% Inert
Ingredients 76.0% Total Arsenic as metallic 4.57%", with respect to the "B"
brand, represented that the standard and quality of the article were as set
forth in the said statements, whereas the strength and purity of the article
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since


the "A"
cent; it
percent;
percent,
nrglppnt* *


brand contained calcium arsenate in a proportion less than 19.5


contained monohy
it contained tota
and it contained
fnnl the W" hrn


drated copper sulphate in a proportion less than
.1 arsenic as metallic in a proportion less than
inert ingredients in a proportion greater than
mndl nntninpr rnlrinm arspnntfA in a nrnnnrtinn


per-
19.5
7.34
61.0
1Pa:


*


l







246


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N, J., I. F.


1404. Misbranding of Bamberger's Antiseptic Bird Wash.
tain Products Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $150.
no. 10778-B.)


U. S. v. Hartz Moun-
(I. & F. no. 1776. Sample


This case
claims rega
for certain
declare the
On April


involved
rding its
insects.
inert ingr
5, 1935,


a product which was misbranded because of unwarranted
alleged effectiveness as an antiseptic, and as a control
The labeling was further objectionable, since it failed to
edients present in the article.


the United


States


New York, acting upon a report by t3
district court an information against t
portion, New York, N. Y., alleging
October 16, 1934, from the State of Nex
quantity of Bamberger's Antiseptic Bir
cide and fungicide within the meaning
The article was alleged to be misbrai
and "For mites, lice, Direc
bath, or if spraying, add one teaspoon:
on the bottle label, were false and mis
ments the article was labeled so as to


the article


when used according


antiseptic, and when used as


against
reason
which s
and th
stated
were th
insectic


mites
that th
ubstan
e name
plainly
ie nam(
idal or





to dir


directed


mnd lice on cage birds.


e article consisted partia
ce does not prevent, des


e


stances present
On April 12,


and percentage
and correctly, or
and percentage
fungicidal prope
therein stated p
1935, a plea of


amoun


attorney for


the Southern


District


he Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
he Hartz Mountain Products Co., a cor-
shipment by said company on or about
v York into the State of New Jersey of a
d Wash, which was a misbranded insecti-
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
3ded in that the statements, "Antiseptic",
tions Add one teaspoonful to the bird's
ful to each four ounces of water", borne
leading, and by reason of the said state-
deceive and mislead the purchaser, since
sections on the label, would not act as an
would not act as an effective insecticide
Misbranding was alleged for the further
lly of an inert substance, namely, water,
troy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi,
t of the said inert ingredient were not


at all, on the bottle label; nor, in lieu thereof,
amount of each ingredient of the article having
rties, and the total percentage of the inert sub-


l


ainly and
guilty wa


orrectly on the label.
entered on behalf o


the defendant


company, and the court imposed a fine of $150.


M.L~


WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1405. Adulteration


Louis


and


WVeisenfeld,


Co.). Pleas
69811-A.)


misbranding


of Mothgard


Kermit Kase and


guilty.


Fines,


Nathan


Camphor


Kase


Pocket.


(Gold


U. S.


Star Novelty
. Sample no.


rr,. a


Trnis case
that it conta
Examination
moth protect
On July 24
New York, a
district couri


Nathan
allegin
State (
known
brande
The
Pocket


involved


a pr


ined camphor
showed that
on claimed.
[, 1935, the U
acting upon a
San informa


oduct which was labeled to
and would afford protection
it contained no camphor and


united States
report by the
tion against


attorney for
Secretary of


Louis


convey the impression
against moth larvae.
would not afford the


the Southern
Agriculture,


Weisenfeld


Kermit


1 Kase, copartners, trading as the Gold Star Novelty Co., New Y
g shipment by said defendants on or about March 29, 1934,
of New York into the State of New Jersey of a quantity of
as "Mothgard Camphor Pocket", which was an adulterated
d insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 191
article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement,
Camphor fumes will kill all moth larvae", borne on


represented that the
consist in part of ca
been substituted for
r* r *


article consisted in part of camphor;
imphor, but another substance, namely,
camphor.
fl /* n. I i^ t


District
filed in
Kase,


ork, N. Y.,
from the
a product,
and mis-
0.
"Camphor
Sthe label,


whereas it did not


naphthalene,







1376-1425]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


247


Misbranding of McClellan's Orthosol and
McOlellan Products, Ltd. Plea of
placed on probation for two years.
60380-A, 60381-A.)
3 case was based on interstate shipment
were misbranded, the labeling of the
regarding its alleged disinfecting and
ag of the latter containing unwarranted i


On May 15, 1935, the
California, acting upon
district court an inform
tion, Los Angeles, Calif.,
Insecticide Act of 1910,
on or about February 16
a misbranded fungicide,
plan's Sheep Dip which
The Orthosol was alle


United States
a report by the


McClellan's Sheep Dip. U. S. v.
nolo contender. Defendant
(I. & F. no. 1778. Sample nos.

its of Orthosol and Sheep Dip
former containing unwarranted
sterilizing properties, and the
nsecticidal claims.


attorney for
Secretary of


the Southern
Agriculture,


District of
tiled in the


ation against the McClellan Products, Ltd., a corpora-
alleging shipment by said company in violation of the
from the State of California into the State of Oregon,
,1934, of a quantity of McClellan's Orthosol which was
and on or about March 3, 1934, of a quantity of McClel-


was
ged


borne on the can label, "F
to 5 gallons of water. This
For use in Hospitals, Sa
surgical instruments, use a


tant", were
article was
represented
disinfection


false an
labeled
that the
when use


d mnisl
so as
article
d at tt


a misbranded
Sto be misbran4
or general disi
can be used wi
nitariums and
1 to 2% soluti
leading, and by
to deceive and
1 would act as
te dilution of on


insecticide
ded in that
infection use
th a mop, br
Homes *
on of McCle
reason of
mislead th
an effective
e-half pint t


that it would sterilize surgical instruments when used
tion, whereas it would not act as an effective disinfec


t


mnd fungicide.
the following


statements


half a pint of Orthosol
ush or sprayer. *
* and to sterilize
llan's Orthosol Disinfec-
the said statements the
e purchaser, since they
disinfectant for general
o 5 gallons of water, and
in a 1 to 2 percent solu-
ant for general disinfec-


tion when used at the dilution of one-half pint to 5 gallons of water, and it
would not sterilize surgical instruments when used at a 1 to 2 percent solution.
Misbranding of the Sheep Dip was alleged for the reason that the statements,
"Dip For Dogs-Use dilution of 1 part of McClellan's Dip to 80 parts of warm
water and wash dog thoroughly, taking special care to remove all scabs and


crusts and then satur
the label, were false
article was labeled
represented that the


ate affected parts.
and misleading, ai
so as to deceive
article when use


treatment for all parasites of the skin
effective treatment for all parasites of


4


Repeat as often
nd by reason of 1
and mislead the
I as directed wo
of dogs; whereas
the skin of dogs


The information also charged a violation of the Food and


necessary", borne on
said statements the
irchaser, since they
act as an effective
would not act as an
ten used as directed.
Drugs Act, reported


in notices of judgment, published under that act.
On September 18, 1935, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contender and
was placed on probation for two years with the usual conditions.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1407. Misbranding of Puritol. U. S. v. Chas. Crompton & Sons, Inc. P
nolo contender. Fine, $5. (I. & F. no. 1779. Sample no. 14540-J
This case was based on an interstate shipment of Puritol, an inse
and fungicide, the labeling of which contained false and misleading
regarding its alleged effectiveness as a disinfectant and germicide, as
trol for mange and certain insects, and as an agency for purifying ti
The label was further objectionable since the article was represented
nonpoisonous, whereas it contained poisonous ingredients; and since i
trained inert substances that were not declared.
On May 15, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Mas


'lea of
B.)
cticide
claims
a con-
ae air.
to be
t con-


sachu-


szetts. uctina innn


a rpnort hv fhe Rerrptnrv of


- I I


onlturp filpd in thp district


1406.


Thit
which
claims
labelir


(







248


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


to one quart of water.
House Cleaning, etc.,


* 1


part


For all washing purposes,
better than soap, one tablespoonful


in 50 of water.


keep animals free from infection
saturate the coat of animal with
in chickens, sprinkle floors and
solution of 1 part in 50 of water"
wash animals (especially neck


"* keep
part in 50 of
the clear, pure
will disappear"
reason of the
mislead the p
phenols and co;


off flies, etc., wash
water", "For wate
disinfectant into
, appearing in the
said statements, th
purchaser, since it
al-tar oils. The ar


Mop


stables


daily


.", "For horses, to
solution, 1 part in
nests of henneries,
, "To destroy all pa
and head) with 1
animals (especially


Scrubbing Floors,
to pail of water.


with same solution
prevent or cure ma
50 of water", "For
and wash roosts
rasites, insects, *
part in 50 of wal
Sneck and head) wi


r bugs, roaches, etc., pour a few
the places where the vermin are
labeling were false and misleadin


article


contained
tidle when


was


1


the air in hospitals, houses, school rooms, lar
not destroy all disease germs, and would not
it would not act as an effective preventive or
on horses, nor would it be effective in the


specific variety of
an effective insect
or all insects that
or insect without
off animals, and


might be
was allege
substances


included
d for the
, namely,


insects or fung
ingredients so j
affixed to the
name and perc
having insectic
inert substance
On June 10,


;i, an
presei
bottle
entag
idal
s pre


labeled


poisonous
used as di
'ders, kitcl
act as an
cure for
prevention


mange without repeated trea
icicle against chicken lice; wo
infest animals; nor would it
repeated treatment; it would
would not cause water bugs,


under


the abbreviation


further reas
substances th
d the name
it therein, w(
e containing
e amount of
or fungicidal
sent, stated


1935, a plea


)n tha
hat doc
and j
ere no


"etc."


tments
uld not
destroy:


r


so as
ingre
ected


to de
dients,
would


and
nge,
lice
wivith
* *
ter",
th 1


drops of
and they
g and by
ceive and
namely,
not keep


hiens, etc., pure, would
effective disinfectant;
all varieties of mange
or treatment of any
; it would not act as
t destroy all parasites
' any specific parasite


keep


roaches, o
, to disapp


Lt the article consisted
Snot prevent, destroy,
percentagee amount of
t stated plainly or cor


all species


r all insects
ear. Misbra
partially of
repel, or mi
each of the
rectly on the


Sflies
that
ending
inert
tigate
inert
label


the article; nor, in lieu thereof, were the
each substance or ingredient of the article
properties, and the total percentage of the
plainly and correctly on the said label.


nolo contender


was


entered


defendant company and the court imposed a fine of


on behalf


of the


__


M. L.


WILUSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1408. Misbranding of Reade's Antiseptic Animal Soap. U. S.
featuring Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I.
Sample no. 16780-B.)


v. Reade Mann-
& F. no. 1793.


This case involved a product intended for use as an insecticide and fungi-
cide, the labeling of which contained false and misleading claims regarding
its alleged effectiveness as an antiseptic and fungicide, and as a control for


certa:
On
actin
court
N.J.
the 8
Antis
with


n insects.
June 17, 1935, the
upon a report l
an information ai
alleging shipment
ate of New Jerse'


ptic Animal


n the meaning


artic


Antisepti
J.b i 9


le was
Animal


United States attorney for the District
y the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
ainst the Reade Manufacturing Co.. In
by said company on or about October
into the State of New York of a quan


SSoap, which was a misbranded inse
g of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
alleged to be misbranded in that the
I Soap The antiseptic and


cticide


statements


germicidal
j I1


New Jersey,
the district
Jersey City,
, 1934, from
T of Reade's


fungicide

"Reade's


properties
-. 1


c


-S.


y







1376-1425]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


249


On September 17, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the de-
fendant company and the court imposed fines for violations of both acts, the
fine on the count charging violation of the Insecticide Act being $50.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1409. Adulteration and misbranding of Kleenup Flowable 011 Emulsion. UJ. S.
v. 80 Drums of Kleenup Flowable Oil Emulsion. Default decree of
destruction. (I. & F. no. 1780. Sample no. 11934-B.)
This case involved an insecticide which contained ingredients which would


be injurious


to certain


labeling bore unwarran
in the control of certain
On February 19, 1935
acting upon a report by
a libel praying seizure
Oil Emulsion at Provo,
interstate commerce on


vegetation w]
ted claims r(
insects.
, the United
the Secretary
and condemn
Utah, allegii


hen
egard.


ised
ing


directed on
effectiveness


label.
the


The
article


States attorney for the District of Utah,
of Agriculture, tiled in the district court
ation of 80 drums of Kleenup Flowable
ng that the article had been shipped in


r about May 1, 1934,


ty the


California Spray-Chemical


Corporation, from Richmond, Calif., and charging
ing in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in th


or substan
Misbran
"Kleenup
Red Mite
Rust, Mit
make One
Lecanium
Gallons of
Borer Us


ices, injury
ding was
Flowable
and Bro
e and H
Hundred


Scale,


ious to
Allege
Oil Em
wn Mit
watching
I Gallon


Cottony


adulteration and


at it contained


vegetation when used as directed.
d for the reason that the following
ulsion Orchard Pests For San Jose Sca
e Eggs, Buffalo Three Hopper Eggs,
Aphis, Eggs, etc., Use Four Gallons
is of Spray", "For Oyster Shell Scale,
Maple Scale, Elm Tree Scale Use Fi


Kleenup to make One Hundred Gallons of Spray"


Three


to Four


Gallons


of Kleenup


Arsenate to make One Hundred Gallons of Sp
Nursery Insects for scale insects, European Red
Gallons of Kleenup to make One Hundred Gall
label, were false and misleading and tended
purchaser, since the article when used as directed
the above-named insects.
On May 3, 1935, no claimant having appeared
was entered and it was ordered that the product


and I
ray",
Mite,
ons of
to de
would


r


threee


, "For


misbrand-


a substance,

statements,
le, European
Blister Mite
Kleenup to
Leaf Roller
ve to Seven
Peach Twig


Pounds


of Lead


'Park Shade Tree
etc., Use Four to ]
Spray", borne on
ceive and mislead
not be effective aga


1, judgment
be destroyed.


and
BFive
the
the
inst


of condemnation


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1410. Adulteration and misbranding of GO-4 and misbranding of G & O Moth
Deodorant. IU. S. v. Goulard & Olena, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $300.
(I. & F. no. 1783. Sample nos. 60917-A, 69827-A, 2163-B.)
This case covered two shipments of GO-4, an insecticide and fungicide, and
one shipment of G & O Moth Deodorant, an insecticide. Examination showed
that the GO-4 would cause injury to certain vegetation when used as directed;
that one lot of the GO-4 contained a smaller proportion of nicotine sulphate
and a larger proportion of water-soluble arsenic as metallic than declared;
and that the G & 0 Moth Deodorant would not afford the moth protection
claimed.
On May 15, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against Goulard & Olena, Inc., trading at Jersey City,
N. J., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Insecticide Act of
1910, on or about March 15, 1934, from the State of New Jersey into the State








250


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N., J., I. F.


Misbranding was alleged
reason that the statements,


with respect to a portion
"Nicotine Sulphate 5.00% *


GO-4 for the
Water Soluble


Bugs-Aphis-Pla
"How and when
Beans. *
ing, were false a:
was labeled so as
ments represented
sulphate and not


and could be
whereas it con
0.5 percent of
all plants and
certain plants,
tain flowers, sl
GO-4 was alle


calyx cup. 3rd Spraying-
were false and misleading t
labeled so as to deceive and
the article could be safely u
on apples, but such use wou
Misbranding of the G &
the statement, "The conten
of tightly enclosed space",
by reason of the said stat
mislead the purchaser in
directed would kill moths,


1411. Adulteration an
Drums of Moe:
relabeled. (I.
This case involved a
ated and misbranded b
calcium arsenate, and


further misbranded
arsenate, containing
the amount of arsen
arsenic declared on
dicating the active a


On March 8, 193
upon a report by
libel praying seizu
ate at Ogden, Utu


commerce
Duration. f


tL .A.


or a
Ric


the
re a
h,
bou
*hm(


not over
Garden !


because


.50%"
* *


whereas


was


"GO-4
* Safe


pen.
loss
se tl
ason
the
mies


ta
In,
a


Mi
the
one
Dns


the article


These
*


Fruits-Shrubs-Vegetables-Flowers-Trees"
Apples: Grapes: *
otted Plants, etc.", appearing in the label


[ for
lead
ntain
cent


the article
said state-
of nicotine
as metallic,
designate ed;
more than


not be safely u
ause serious inj
and beans and
the remainder
"Apples *


12^
ng


later".


d statements the article was
since they represented that
t could not be safely so used


Id cause serious injury thereto.
O Moth Deodorant was alleged for the reason that
ts of this package will kill moths in 20 cubic feet
borne on the label, was false and misleading; and


so as to deceive and
article when used as


used


would


sea on
ury to
to cer-
of the
* 1st
water.


a product other


than


U. S. v. 9
bond to be


vas adulter-
other than
article was


or lead


Arsenic
They Go


as Metallic
For Your


Di
use
power
mnis
Sdec<
nat tl
ore t


Bugs and Diseases Before
* For certain Kinds of


sea so on
GO-4 *
s, Shrubs, p
leading, and
eive and mis
he article co
than 0.5 per


safely
tainted
water-s
on the
and ca
irubs,
ged fo


the further reason that
the purchaser in that the
ed not less than 5 percent
of water-soluble arsenic
and on the vegetation
of nicotine sulphate and


used on all plants
less than 5 percent
soluble arsenic as me
designated vegetation
use serious injury to


and potted plants.
r the reason that


Spraying-Apply before blossoms
2nd Spraying-Same dose just a


llie; it could
but would c
apples, grapes,
branding of
statements,
(1) lb. to
fall. direct


-Same
mnd by
1 misle,
sed on


gallons


the spra
borne on


hree weeks
of the sai
purchaser,
: whereas i


* into the
the label,


ement the article w
that it represented


as labeled
that the


when


not kill moths.
On May 24, 1935. a plea of guilty was entered
company and the court imposed a fine of $300.
M. L. WILSON, Acting


as directed


on behalf


\g Secretary


of the defendant

of Agriculture.


d misbranding of Moca Calcium Arsenate.
a Calcium Arsenate. Product released under
& F. no. 1784. Sample no. 26120--B.)
shipment of Moca Calcium Arsenate which v
becausee of the presence of calcium compounds
siliceous material of the nature of talc. The


Paris green


rsenic, and did not have the
in water-soluble form express
he label, and failed to bear
1 inert ingredients.
he United States attorney for
Secretary of Agriculture, I
nd condemnation of nine drn
alleging that the article had
t March 9, 1934. by the Cal
ond. Calif.. and charging adu


total amount of arsenic and
sed as p)ercentum of metallic
on the label a statement in-


the District of Utah, acting
filed in the district court a
ims of Moca Calcium Arsen-
I been shipped in interstate
ifornia Spray-Chemical Cor-
Iteration and misbrandinw in


)
1


-


%


1








1376-1425]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


251


bear a statement of the name and percentage amount of the ingredient having
insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of inert ingredients.
On May 22, 1935, the California Spray Chemical Corporation, having ap-
peared as claimant and having admitted that the product was not properly
labeled, judgment was entered ordering that it be released to the claimant under
bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of this Department.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1412. Adulteration and misbranding of powdered arsenate of calcium. UI. S. v.
500 Bags of Powdered Arsenate of Calcium. Default decree of con-
demnnation and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1785. Sample no. 66501-A.)


This case involved
trained water-soluble
excess of the amount
the product injurious
On March 15, 1935
of Mississippi, acting
the district court a


a shipment of powdered arsenate of calcium which (
arsenic, expressed as arsenic pentoxide, materially


declared on the label
to certain vegetation


, the
upon
libel


United
a report
praying


States
t by tt
seizure


Orchard Brand Powdered Arsenate of C
the article had been shipped in interstate
by the General Chemical Co., from East
tion and misbranding in violation of the
The article was alleged to be adulte


fell below the professes
for the further reason
when used as directed.
Misbranding was all


Water Soluble
to Metallic Ars
Package when
Contained Her
to deceive and
arsenic pentox:
than claimed.


form not
enic 0.49
Shipped
eon", bor
mislead
ide and m
Misbran


d st
tha


alci
e c
L St


, and in sufficient amount to render
on which its use was recommended.
attorney for the Southern District
'e Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
and condemnation of 500 bags of
mm at Meridian, Miss., alleging that
commerce on or about May 18, 1934,


Louis,


Insecticide A
rated in th


andard and quality und
it it contained substance


Ill., and char
Act of 1910.
at its strong
er which it
:es injurious


going adultera-

th and purity
was sold, and
to vegetation


?ged for the reason that the statements, "Arsenic min
more than 0.75 per cent. Arsenic Pentoxide Equivalent
per cent.", and "We Guarantee that the Contents of this
by us Complied with the Statement of Composition


ne o
the
rore
ding


n the label,
purchasers,


water-soluble a
was alleged fo


ment, "For Liquid Application on *
to Two and One Half Lbs.", on the labels,
be safely used on shade trees; whereas it
trees when used as directed.
On October 2, 1935, no claimant having
tion was entered and it was ordered that ti
M. L. WILSON

1413. Misbranding of Aid-All Flea-Rid an
Aid-All Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. F
nos. 68348-A, 71730-A.)


were false and misleading and tended
since it contained more water-soluble


rsenic expressed as metallic arsenic
r the further reason that the state-
* Shade Trees One and One Half
represented that the article could
would seriously injure many shade


appeared, judgment of
ie product be destroyed.
, Acting secretary of Ac


condemna-


iriculture.


d Insecticide Spray. UT. S.
ine, $150. (I. & F. no. 1786.


v. The
Sample


This case was
branded because
effectiveness in
Rid was further
present.


On April
acting upon


based on interstate shipments of insecticides which were mis-
of unwarranted claims in the labeling regarding their alleged
the control of certain insects. The product Aid-All Flea-
misbranded because of failure to declare the inert ingredients


20, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court


an information against the Aid-All Co., Inc., Newark, N. J., alleging shipment
^~ o 4~r 1 ncrn on ri--~it- nt-iT nfvl n lnl/i-^ 4 ~ t-NIn nn/-l. Ofl nn Av -1 '^Tfni r* AI n1 b0A 4nrt-,->- 4-1ba/ Ct-n tfa n-Y P


.








252


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I. F.


amount
stated p
ing the
of each
percent
label.


of each of
lainly and c
article; nor
ingredient c
Lge of the in


Misbranding
statements, "F
Ants Etc.-use
and by reason
and mislead th


as directed
that might
when used
nor would
included ur
On May
company, a:


o
e


e p
uld
in


the inert ingredients
orrectly on the label a
, in lieu thereof, were
)f the article having i
tert substances present


the
s Et
dilu
the
urc.
act
clud


Insecticide Spray
c.-mix with equal
ted", borne on the
said statement th
haser, since they r
Sas an effective it
ed under the abb


so present in the article was not
affixed to each of the bottles contain-
the names and percentage amounts
insecticidal properties, and the total
stated plainly and correctly on the


was alleged for the reasc
ptrts of water as a spra;
bottle label, were false and
e article was labeled so as
presented that the article
isecticide against fleas and
reviation "Etc.", whereas


)n that the
v Roaches,
misleading,
to deceive
when used
all insects
the article.


s directed, would not act as an effective insecticide against fleas,
act as an effective insecticide against all insects that might be
er the abbreviation "Etc."
1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant


the court imposed a fine of $150.
M. L. WILSON, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1414. Misbranding of Rotecide Insect Dust.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $40. (I.
7352-B.)


U. S. v. Rotenone Products Co.. Inc.
& F. no. 1790. Sanmple nos. 49902-A,


This case was based on shipments of an insecticide the labeling of which
contained unwarranted claims regarding its effectiveness in the control of
insects. The labeling was further objectionable, since the product was repre-


sented to be nonpoisonous,


clients present were i
On May 15, 1935, t
acting upon a report
an information agair
alleging shipment by
1934, from the State


whereas it was poisonous, and since the inert ingre-


: declared.
United States a
the Secretary o
the Rotenone I
id company on (
New Jersey into


attorneyy
f Agricu
Products
or about
the Sta


for the District of New Jersey,
ilture, filed in the district court
Co., Inc., East Orange. N. J.,
August 22. 1933, and March 8.
te of New York of quantities of


Rotecide Insect Dust which was a misbranded insecticide
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbrnnded in that the I


"Rotecide Insect Dust
houseman, Gardener,


Domestic
Worms,
Animal o
min And
against i
Poultry
and Veze


Vermin
Caterpill
r Bird",
various
nsect in
Houses.


tables


"Directio" s
layer of dus
Dust cannot
after water
noon. Appli
hand duster.
rub dust upo
no harm. F


ar

o
fe


SI~t'


within


the meaning


following statements,


* A Superfi-e Product For The Farmer, Green-
able, Dairy Barn, Dog Kennel, Poultry House, and for


* Rotecide Dust effectively cc
s Domestic Vermin", "No
Rotecide Dust effectively controls *
their insects", "Roteeide Insect Dust
stations usually common in Stables,


Also.
uListed


For Plants


t

n


against


* other


ntrols: *
n-Poisonous To 1
Domestic
is absolute protect
Kennels, Barns


Domestic


Insects"


th Rotecide Insect Dust are protected from
Dust thoroughly, covering all surfaces with


. Be sure to well cover the nev
begin too early as no plant is to
g or after dew has begun to fall


growth.


~ny
mt


cations should be re-applied after ral
For Animals and Fowl Dust into th
in head and under wings of fowl. A
or Stable, Kennel and Home Sprinkle


'r


Cut
Ian,
Ver-
tion
and
uits


insects",
a light


use of Rotecide


oung to be protect
he early morn or
ins. For small a


e dry hair of the
generous application
Dust into all co


ted. Dust
late after-
reas use a
animal or
ion will do
rners, crev-


)
)


ir







1376-1425]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


253


substances,


namely,


substances


not prevent, destroy, repel,
amount of each inert subst
stated plainly and correctly
and percentage amount of
properties, and the total r
plainly and correctly on the


On May 24,


1935, a


other


than


derris


resins


which substances


or mitigate insects, and the name and percentage
ance or ingredient present in the article were not
on the label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name
each ingredient of the article having insecticidal
percentage of the inert substances present stated
label.
of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant


company, and the court imposed a fine of $40.
M. L. WILSON, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1415. Adulteration and misbranding c
Chlorinated Lime. Default d
(I. & F. no. 1796. Sample no. 289
This case involved a product which
able chlorine and a larger proportion
label.
On April 15, 1935, the United State
setts, acting upon a report by the Sec
court a libel praying seizure and cond
at Boston, Mass., alleging that the ar
merce on or about March 27, 1935,
from Phillipsdale, R. I., and charging


tion of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


The article wa
were represented
30 percent and in
such standard.
Misbranding w
Chlorine not less


if chlorinated lime. U. S. v. 420 Cans of
decree of condemnation and destruction.
96-B.)
contained a smaller proportion of avail-
of inert ingredients than declared on the

s attorney for the District of Massachu-
retary of Agriculture, filed in the district
emnation of 420 cans of chlorinated lime
tidle had been shipped in interstate corn-
by the Sunlight Chemical Corporation,
- adulteration and misbranding in viola-


s alleged to be adulterated in that its standard and quality
to be such that it contained available chlorine not less than
ert ingredients not more than 70 percent, whereas it fell below


ras
tha


alle
n 30


ged for the reason that the statements, "Available
Percent. Inert Ingredients not more than 70 percent",


borne on the can label, were false and misleading and tended
mislead the purchaser.
On May 27, 19S5, no claimant having appeared, judgment of
was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
M. L. WILSON. Acting Secretary of


1416. Adulteration and misbranding of
Nico Dust No. 110. Default de
(I. & F. no. 1797. Sample no. 12514
This case involved an insecticide th
nicotine, the active ingredient, and a
than declared on the label.
On April 16, 1935, the United States
acting upon a report by the Secretary o1
a libel praying seizure and condemnation


at Phoenix, Ariz.,
merce on or about
Angeles, Calif., an
Insecticide Act of
The article was
below the professe


alleging t
July 3, 1!
d charging,
1910.
alleged t<
d standard


hat the artic
934, by the I
g adulteratic


)
1


to deceive and


condemnation

Agriculture.


Dust No. 110. U. S. v. 2 Drums of
of condemnation and destruction.


at contained a smaller proportion of
larger proportion of inert ingredients


attorney for the District of Arizona,
f Agriculture, filed in the district court
)n of two drums of Nico Dust No. 110
le had been shipped in interstate com-
qico Dust Manufacturing Co., from Los
)n and misbranding in violation of the&


be adulterated in that its strength or purity fell
or quality under which it was sold.


Misbranding was alleged for the reason
dients nicotine not less than 2.75% inert
carrier not more than 97.25%", were fal


that the statements, "Active ingre-
ingredients spec. dust composing
se and misleading and tended to


&f


- f


f







254


INSECTICIDE


ACT


(N. 3., I. F~


a concentrated ilinely powdered chlorine as clal


objectiotnab ile because of unw arrai
infectant properties of the article.


rnted


claims


med. Tlhe labeling was further
as to the germ-killing and dis-


tin April 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Oriegon,
acting upon a report by tie Secretary of Agriculture, tiled in the district court
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 16 cartons of C-I-Cide 15 Chlorine
Disinfectant at Portlaind,. ()reg., alleging that the article had been shipped in


interstate comnmerce on or ulonut


stories,


CI~IIII


Petalunta,


Calif.,


Selateuifr t).


charging


1931, by


adulterat 101o


vi ldat ion of the Insecticidle Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its str
fell Iil 4w the professed staTldard and quality under \whi lh it
('art n) "Availalle Chlorine, over 15% Sodium Chloride


I l;l H iH lHll IS


the l'talunia Labora-
and misbranding in


eugth and purity
was sold, namely:
and other inert


appearing in


U


Chloride and ol
lar) "(I )l- itle


hecause
other 1.
add ote
of wate


wa
he
her
*21.


s alleg
labeling
Sinert


S1


is very


C Chh)liflC
ICUSJH)OJ7IfUI


r"


ed


I'rell son


. (carton) "Available
ingredients s5% *


IS ft COhlCt'fltl'ftttttI


light


lroldurt
to each


were false and


finely


flu.11 it ioues
on thle market


gall'ni


misleading


since the article contalinel


('hlorini
* Kill


following s statements
e, over o% Sodium1
t't, ^ .j ^^^ liodtill~ Im.


St


powdered


farttier t
*. 's.l


or ote ta hlesl)uilt


t ended


baIt


ill Germs"


chlorine


ihret


as a it
flul to 1


ti) (leCcive


less than 15 percent of


pounds


. (eircu-
*


isin feet ait ,l ray,
Sach thllree gallons
Sand mnislead the
available chlorine


it Here


it wa
than


s


than


I percent


not a r(IIeentrattd.,


three pounds of


of inert illlre etl ntt; i
finely lpowtdered chliuril
15 percent chlorine on


an effect ive disinfectant in the dilutions specified.
latisn o)f the Food and l)rugs Act reported in


It


t v
lie:


voul
it


(I hOt
~VoUl4l


kill all gerims;
niot go farther


the market; and it was not
The libel also charged a vio-
)tice of judgment no. 24550,


Ilubiisled uimder that act.
)n June_ 2U, 193. no claimnant having appear
was entered and it was ordered that the product


Act iiif;


judgment


1)e destroyed.


Sccre tafr of


1415. Adulteration and ntisbranding of B-K Bacill Kil.
II-K Ilarll KilI. Default decree of condenuna
(I. & I. no. 100, Sample no. 1510O-B.)


U.S
tion


of condemnation


A yricis It nrc.


. v. 33: Iottlen of
and destruction.


This


active


disC


involved


ingredient,


a fungicide


2 otlzuin


in greili ts than declare d i


S)n April


'fexas,
I nc?
i~ieili


ac(t in
<>utrt
Kil


, 1935,


1g upon a r
a libel lura
nat lousion,


Ihylochlorite,
n the lthel.


tihe l'nite(


port


:init st
^HIIT S(
*^Tex .,^^!*f


a:


contained


a smaller


a la rger


d States attorney
the Secretary of
Ztre ani conrledm
consigned by thi


proportion


ir)oI)+rltii l


for the Soutlhern


n


Agriculture,
ati n o>f 33


General


illed
lbiti


LahoratI


of the


of the inert


l)istrict of
in thie dis-
ces of IlIK
ories, Inc.,


alle,.ing that
N\ ventil r 1


ie article
1933, fri


1


had
, W


)(emn shilpped in
yandiotte, Mich.,


interstsate clhmtlnerce On or ab)ut
into the State of Texas, and


Charging thalit it was an |a(llteratel andi
mniit ing of the Insecit ide Act of 11)141.
Thei article was alleged to I* adulterated


fell iselow the l ro)fesseil stanridthni and tiuality


IistlranI ing


wa~


4 C


and liot tle JIYhels, "A
incr++lit+nts Oft1. ) ier


and mis lea


Sllegeo
clive
('chnt


iurtrhaasers.
U l i +


d


for the


re~


ingredient s+
1", wre false


ISOn
ittliurn
and


ln isl )T HI i nle1

in that it


'In
II
ml


I tiiiz icit it'


ren~


under which it \
t thle statements
ip)cadloritng and t)
isleading and teln


?5 StI


within


zth and1
was soldh


purity


on the carton


Ipr
d(ed


ccitt


Inert


to decelve


. 4. I a


aS


+H







1376-1425]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


255


state


commerce


on or about


Corporation, from Richmond,
the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to
for insecticidal purposes, wa
condition would be injurious
used.
On May 31, 1935, the Califo


ing consented to the ent
the product be released
returned to the factory
brought up to the standard


May
Calif.


1934,


the California


Sp


, and charging adulteration in


ray-Chemical
violation of


e adulterated in that it was an oil emulsion
completely broken down, and in its present
vegetation upon which it was intended to be


rnia


Spray-Chemical


ry of a decree,
to the claiman
for remixing a
d requirements
M. L. WILSC


Corporation, claimant, hav-


judgment was entered ordering
t under bond conditioned that
nd that it should not be sold
for such products.


>N, Acting


Secretary of


that
it be
until


Agriculture.


1420. Adulteration and misbranding of E-Z. U. S. v. 21 Cases of E-Z.
decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1807.
36278-B.)


This case involved a
it contained a small
chlorite, and a larger
label. The article wa
claims in the labeling
sterilizing properties.
On May 28, 1935, t


Island, ac
district co
training 12
had been


Default
Sample no.


fungicide which was adulterated and misbranded, since
r percentage of the active ingredient, sodium hypo-
percentage of inert ingredients than declared on the
s further misbranded because of false and misleading
regarding its strength and alleged harmlessness and


United


ting upon a report b:
urt a libel praying sei;
quart bottles of E-Z,
shipped in interstate


by the E-Z Products Co.,
article was an adulterated
the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged
Ingredients Sodium Hypoc


bott
tain
less
mor
fess
thai


from


States


attorney


y the Secretary of i
zure and condemnation
at Newport, R. I.,
commerce on or ab
New Bedford, Mass.,


and misbranded

to be adulterated


hlorite


Inert


fungicide s

in that thb
Ingredients


le label, represented that its standard and quality
ed an active ingredient, sodium hypochlorite, in
than 5 percent, and contained inert ingredients in
e than 95 percent; whereas its strength and puri
ed standard and quality under which it was sold,
i 5 percent of sodium hypochlorite, approximately


hypochlorite, and i
Misbranding was
Ingredients Sodiu
concentrated sodii
known to physician]


a sterilizer"


t contained more
alleged for the rn
n HIypochlorite 5
um hypochlorite"
ns and chemists",


, (shipping case)


were false and misleading,


District


Rhode


agriculture filed in the
n of 21 cases, each con-
alleging that the article
out February 16, 1935,
and charging that the


iithuii


the meaning


le statements,


95%"


borne


"Active
on the


were such that it
the proportion of
the proportion of
ty fell below the
since it contained
2.66 percent of sot


than 95 percent of inert
jason that the statements,
1% Inert Ingredients 95
, "Its harmlessness *
"Sterilizer The


"Sterilizer
id by reason


was labeled so as to deceive and mis
that the article contained not less
and not more than 95 percent of ine
sodium hypochlorite solution, that it
whereas the article contained less t
contained more than 95 percent of in


* 10'


of the said


lead the purchase
than 5 percent
rt ingredients, tha
was a sterilizer, ai
han 5 percent of
iert ingredients, it


, appearing


con-
not
not
pro-
less
Hum


ingredients.
(bottle) "Active


%", "E-Z
* are
use of E
in the lab


statements


the a


r, since they repres


is a
well
-Z as
eling,
article
ented


of sodium hypochlorite,
t it was a concentrated
nd that it was harmless;
sodium hypochlorite; it
was not a concentrated


sodium hypodhlorite solution, it was not a sterilizer, and it was not harmless,
It. .J* ja r. a -- fl* -f ^- *j-- /- *^ ifl







256


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


On May


Ohio
court
tion
state
from
of th
Th


1935,


, acting upon a r<
- a libel praying
at Youngstown,
commerce on or
Pittsburgh, Pa.,
e Insecticide Act
e article was all


the United


port
seizi
)hio,
abou
and
of 1
eged


ktaLcv


by the S
ire and c
alleging
it Novemb
charging
910.
to be ad


standard and quality under which
Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt.


attorney


Northern District


secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
ondemnation of 120 bottles of Lucky Solu-
that the article had been shipped in inter-
er 3, 1934, by the Lucky Chemical Co., Inc.,
adulteration and misbranding in violation


ulterated since it


fell below the professed


i it was sold, namely, "Activ
Inert Ingredients 94.75% by


e Ingredients
Wt."


Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the following statements ap-
pearing in the labeling were false and misleading and tended to deceive and
mislead the purchaser: "Active Ingredients Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by
Wt. Inert Ingredients 94.75% by Wt. Kills Germs The
Sensational New Luck Disinfects and Cleans in One Single Operation *
To Clean and Sweeten Dental Plates Soak Fifteen Minutes or Overnight in
this Solution For Toilet Bowls Add One-half Cup Lucky to Bowl,
Stir Well. Add Three Tablespoonfuls Vinegar Let Stand Two Hours or Over-
night. Flush Drains with Cupful Pure Lucky Follow with Hot Water in
Five Minutes."
On June 19, 1935, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


M. L. WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1422. Misbranding of Calgreen. IU. S. v. 1,089 Bags of Calgreen. Defanlt
decree of destruction. (I. & F. no. 1811. Sample nos. 22921-B, 23172-B.)
This case involved an insecticide that contained water-soluble arsenic (ex-
pressed as metallic arsenic) min excess of the amount declared on the label.
On June 12, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota,


acting
a libel
Minn.,
about
N. J.,
mean
The


upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,


praying


seizure





alleging that the
January 22, 1935,
and charging tha
ng of the Insectici
article was allege


ble arsenic (as metallic)
and tended to deceive
than 2.0 percent of wate
On August 21, 1935,


,nd con
article
by the
t the a
de Act
d to be
not m
and m
r-solubl


demnation (
had been s]
Chipman Cl
article was
of 1910.
misbranded
ore than 2.0
Lislead the
.e arsenic.


claimant


having


filed in the district court


)f 1,089 bags of Calgreen at Duluth,
hipped in interstate commerce on or
iemical Co., Inc., from Bound Brook,
a misbranded insecticide within the

Sin that the statement, "'Water solu-
Sper cent", was false and misleading
purchaser, since it contained more


appeared,


judgment


was


entered


ordering that the product be destroyed.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1423. Misbranding of Mulsold Sulfur. U.
Consent decree of condemnation.
relabeled. (I. & F. no. 1815. Samp
Sample cans of Mulsoid Sulfur taken fro
were found to contain less than 4 pounds,
On July 5, 1935, the United States attorn
acting upon a report by the Secretary of A
a libel praying seizure and condemnation
Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging that the article
nmfrlfn nn nn ohnil-a A nidl 11 1C91" u IIT thn


S. v. 161 Cartons of Mulsoid Sulfur.
Product released under bond to be
le nos. 35135-B, 35411-B.)
m the shipment involved in this case
the weight declared on the label.
ey for the Southern District of Ohio,
Agriculture, filed in the district court
of 161 cartons of Mulsoid Sulfur at
had been shipped in interstate cornm-
C ha *n T.X7T4llm11 oi \ *rn,'m T n lnrd


l


I


I







1376-1425] NOTI(

1424. Adulteration and misbran
of Mulsoid Sulfur. Dec
bond to be relabeled. (
This case involved a product
active ingredient, sulphur, and
than declared on the label.
On July 10, 1935, the United S


acting
court
Sulfur
state (
Bound
insect
The


upon a report by the Secret;
a libel praying seizure and co
at Boston, Mass., alleging tha
commerce on or about June 10,
Brook, N. J., and charging th.
cide and fungicide within the


article


not less than 95%


alleged


DES


JUDGMENT


257


ding of Mulsoid Sulfur. U. S. v. 111 Packages
?ree of condemnation. Product released under
I. & F. no. 1816. Sample no. 36467-B.)
which cojitained a smaller proportion of the
a larger proportion of the inert ingredients

states attorney for the District of Massachusetts,


ary
ndem
it th
1935
at it
mea


to be adultery


of Agriculture,
inlarion of 111
e article had 1
, by the Shernv
was an a dulte
ning of the In
Lted in that th


Inert Ingredients not more than


containing the article, represented
of sulphur, and not more than 5
product fell below the professed
sold, since it contained less than 95
5 percent of inert ingredients.
Misbranding was alleged for the


that it contain


5%",
not


file(
p lkd
been
jin-W
rated
secti(
.e sta
born
Less


1 in the district
ages of Mulsoid
shipped in inter-
illiams Co., from
and misbranded
tide Act of 1910.
itements, "Sulfur
e on the packages
than 95 percent


percent of inert ingredients; whereas the
standard and quality under which it was
percent of sulphur, and contained more than


reason that the following statements,


Pounds Net Weight Active Ingredient-Sulfur, not less th
Inert Ingredients Not more than 5%", borne on the packages, were f
misleading, and by reason of the said statements the article was la
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained less than 95
of sulphur, and contained more than 5 percent of inert ingredients.
On August 30, 1935, the Sherwin-Williams Co., Cleveland, Ohio
appeared as claimant for the property and having admitted the al


an 95%
alse and
beled so
Percent

, having
legations


of the libel, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the
product be released under bond conditioned that it be properly relabeled.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

1425. Misbranding of Wolf's Gardite. U. S. v. 77 Cases of Wolf's Gardite.
Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1822.
Sample no. 32313-B.)
This case involved a shipment of Wolf's Gardite which was misbranded
because of unwarranted claims in the labeling regarding its alleged effectiveness


in the control of certain ins
On August 6, 1935, the Uni
Iowa, acting upon a report
district court a libel praying
Gardite at Des Moines, Iowa
interstate commerce on or abo
Centralia, Mo., and charging


meaning
"Wolf's
certain


rosebushes,


of tlhe
Gardite
bugs and


ects.
ted States attorney for the Southern District of


by the Secretary
seizure and condem
, alleging that the
ut June 3, 1934, by
that it was a misbi


Agriculture,


filed


nation of 77 cases 4
article had been sl
the Wolf Chemical
'anded insecticide w


Insecticide Act of 1910. The article was
made to satisfy-guards gardens-Gardite
[ worms on melon, cucumber and pumpkin


some


other


plants


flowers


labeled


is exc
vines,


* Gardite


e


1


of Wo:
tipped
Co., fr
withinn 1
in pa
illent
cabba
may a


the
If's
in
om
the
rt:
for
ge,
lso


be used for certain vermin that infest dogs, poultry, horses, cattle, sheep
and hogs."
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted state-
ments borne on the package label were false and misleading, and by reason of
the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the
purchaser, since it would not guard gardens against all bugs and worms on
-n, n., ^vci nwvrft n yt's /^rnh nc ni' n-w in y ci nio 'v inf1// ,,n/cwcdl's, ohcT/^~ nni'^/ A4-h n/n -il on 4-c, nn A- El flyn ^wrin",


i















INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1376-1425


Aid-A
Apex

Arsen
Bamb


I.


11 Flea-Rid: N.
Aid-All Co., Inc------
Cresola Disinfectant:
Apex Soap & Sanitary Corpora-
tion --
ate of calcium, powdered:
General Chemical Co .
erger's Antiseptic Bird Wash
Hartz Mountain Products Co-
S. Ointment:
De Vine, J. F., Laboratories,


Inc-- ---- --------------
B-K Bacili Kil"
General Laboratories, Inc
Black Eagle Roach Exterminator
B. & B. Exterminators, Inc__
B. P. A. Bean Dust:
Bridgeville Packing Associa-
tion_-_
Brehm's, Dr., Hartz Mountain Anti-
septic Bird Wash
Hartz Mountain Products Co--
Calgreen
Chipman Chemical Co., Inc._._
C-D-Cide 15-Chlorine Disinfectant:


Cedar


Petaluma
Vaporator:


Galler,
Galree
Regal
Cresol compo
Good,
solution :
Good,


Dermatone :
De


Inc
Double-Duty
Devoe
E-Z:


Laboratories


M. S., & Reefer
Products Co- -
Products Co -.
und liquor:
James, Inc._


James,


Vine,


J. F.,


J. no.
1413


El. 3---


1399


Laboratories,


Spray :
& Raynolds


E-Z Products Co_.
Fleavex :
Hartz Mountain Products Co__
Germ-X :


GO-4:


1420
1400


American Lanolin Corporation.


Goulard & Olena, I
G & 0 Moth Deodorant:
Goulnrd & Olena,
Goshen Glow Shampoo:
De Vine, J. F., L


Ilandy


[nc
L*l in-- ----_^---

In boratories.
laboratories .


Inei ----------------


Plantox
Clean IIome


Products, Inc---


IIavok
Henry & IHenry. Inc
High Jene Deodorizer Moth
Dovola Co--.-
Smith, J. J.--


Killer


Insctici(lde Spray
Aid-All Co., Inc--


1385


1413


Lime, chlorinated: N.
Sunlight Chemical Corpora-
tion .... ... -
Lucky Solution -
Lucky Chemical Co., Inc .
Mange Relief:
De Vine, J. F., Laboratories,
Inc--------- ----- .
McClellan's Orthosol:
McClellan Products, Ltd .
Sheep Dip:
McClellan Products, Ltd
Merax Mercury Cyanide Solution:
Dental Research Laboratories
and Sales Corporation .....
Moca Calcium Arsenate:
California Spray-C h e m i c a 1
Corporation .--------
Mothgard Camphor Pocket:
Gold Star Novelty Co
Kase, Kermit- ------
Kase, Nathan _
Weisenfeld, Louis .....
Mulsoid Sulfur:
Sherwin-Williams Co .. 1423
My-T-Mite Powder:
Hartz Mountain Products Co-


Newco:
Newco Laboratories---
Newman, Milton
Niagara Viti Dust
Niagara Sprayer & Cher
Co., Inc _
Nico Dust No. 110
Nico Dust Manufacturing
Old Nick's Seed Treatment
Nickerson. I. J
Old Nick Seed Treatment
Orthol K Medium
California Spray-C h e m i
Corporation __


mnical


Pestroy:
Sherwin-Williams Co .. .
Pet Dry Bath Powder:
General Desserts Corporation


Pi


Pu


ne Disinfectant:
Jansen, H. V------
Jansen Soap & Chemic
Industrial
Ind(lustrial Laboratories
Lippel, I. M------
rina Flea Powder:
Ralston Purina Co--


Puritol:
Crompton. Chns., & Sons.


Reade's Antiseptic


Animal Soap:


J. no.
1415

1421

1383

1406
1406

1395

1411

1405
1405
1405
1405
,1424

1400


1397
1416

1390
1390


1419

1384

1394


I


t


(


I I ~J




V









































































































*





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
S I I 3 111 08lu I DII1115111 1 48 fll
3 1262 08582 4869