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:
AA00008549:00021

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text



Issued August 1936


, L F. 1426-1450


United


States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]
1426-1450


[Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture,


Washington, D. C.,


June


3, 1936]


1426. Adulteration' and misbranding of blue ointment. U. S. v. William D.
Koster and Albert Springer (Petroline Laboratories). Fine, $50 on
each count against each defendant. Sentence suspended. (I. & F. no.
1682. Sample no. 42958-A.)


This case was based on an interstate shipment
represented to be of pharmacopoeial standard, bul
the standard for blue ointment laid down in the UI


On May
New York,
district cou
copartners,
shipment h
defendants


28, 1935, the United States attorney f
acting upon a report by the Secretary
rt an information against William D.
trading as the Petroline Laboratories,
ereinafter mentioned at Brooklyn, N. Y
on or about July 7, 1933, from the


of blue ointment which was
t which failed to conform to
unitedd States Pharmacopoeia.
for the Southern District of
of Agriculture, filed in the
Koster and Albert Springer,
and located on the date of
r., alleging shipment by said
state of New York into the


State of Pennsylvania of a quantity of blue ointment 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 statement on the label,
"Blue Ointment, U. S. P.", represented that its standard and quality were such
that it complied with the United States Pharmacopoeia, whereas its strength
and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was
sold, since it did not comply with the standard of the United States Pharma-
cpoeia for blue ointment, in that it contained mercury in a proportion of not
more than 24.4 percent, whereas the United States Pharmacopoeia requires that
blue ointment shall contain not less than 29 percent of mercury.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Blue Ointment,
TI S. P. Mercurial Ointment Diluted", and "We guarantee each ointment to
be strictly U. S. P. or N. F.", borne on the carton label, were false and mis-
leading, and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled so as to
deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they represented that the article com-
plied with the United States Pharmacopoeia, whereas it did not.


The information contained further counts charging violation:
and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment no. 25027, pu
that act.
The defendants, Koster and Springer, entered pleas of guilty to
July 12 and July 15, 1935, respectively. The court imposed a
M .. I. J Vt J .. LA rf _-__ __ -.A I A...f-_ -3- -4 -3


s of the
iblished


Food
under


all charges on
fine of $50 on
--a .-- -i ....4.J


xl


J








260


INSECTICIDE


ACT


deodorant properties and because the inert ingredient in the article was not
declared.
On May 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 National Sales Chain Corporation,
New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the In-
secticide Act of 1910 from the State of New York into the State of Pennsyl-
vania, on or about October 13, 1933, of a quantity of Ideal Sanidaire which
was a misbranded fungicide, on or about December 14, 1933, of a quantity of
San-Ideal Crystals, which was a misbranded insecticide and fungicide, and on
or about December 21, 1983, of a quantity of Ideal Moth Block which was a
misbranded insecticide.
The San-Ideal Crystals were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,
d*'k-


"San I(
Pleasin
* *
Moth
closets,
Crystals
false ai


Teal Crystals Vaporizing Destroy
g Atmosphere San-Ideal
Sprinkle sparingly wherever foul
Damage in Garments *


chests, trunks, d


* Keep
misleading an


labeled so as to
that the article
would overcome
would keep out
directed would n
odors, would not
moths, ants, and


deceive
when u
all foul
moths,
ot destr
furnish
bugs.


all unpleasant Odors and Leave a
Crystals Overcome Foul Odors
odors cling" and "Protection against
Sprinkle sparingly into


drawers, etc. for moth protection *
out Moths, Ants and Bugs", borne on the ]
d by reason of the said statements the
and mislead the purchaser in that they
sed as directed would destroy all unplea
odors, would furnish protection against
ants, and bugs; whereas the article wh


o0
h


San-Ideal
labels, were
article was
represented
sant oddrs,
moths, and


en


used


all unpleasant odors, would not overcome all foul
protection against moths, and would not keep out


Misbranding of the Ideal Moth Block was alleged for the reason
statements, "Moth Block For use in wardrobes *
etc.", borne on the label were false and misleading and by reason of
statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive or mislead the p
since they represented that the article when used as directed would
tive against moths under all conditions; whereas it would not be


that the
pianos,
the said
purchaser,
be effec-
effective


against moths under all conditions when used as directed.
Misbranding of Ideal Sanidaire was alleged for the reason that the following
statements, "Antiseptic Deodorizing Spray" and "Destroys Unpleasant and
Offensive Odors", 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 in that they represented that the article was antiseptic when
used as a spray and that it would destroy odors; whereas the article was not
antiseptic when used as a spray and would not destroy odors. Misbranding of
the Ideal Sanidaire was alleged for the further reason that the article con-
sisted partially of an inert substance, water, 1. e., a substance that does not
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi, and the name and the percentage
amount of the said inert substance so present therein were not stated plainly
and correctly, or at all, on the label affixed to the bottle; nor, in lieu, thereof


were the name or percentage amount
said article having fungicidal property
substance or ingredients so contained
at all, on the bottle label.
On December 12, 1935, a plea of g
fendant company, and the court impose


of each substance or ingredient of the
es, and the total percentage of the inert
therein stated plainly and correctly, or


guilty was entered on beh
ed a fine of $24.
mm* ns A nA .tAtL J JA t J A-IMAl( V d


alf


the dei








1426-1450]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


261


made from the genuine aromatic cedar (Juniperus Virginiana) that is used in
making cedar chests. Beginning with the logs from selected cedar trees, the
sapwood, which contains no moth killing oils, is removed. The heartwood of
the log is then ground, and rolled by a patented process into sheets. In this
process all of the natural cedar oils so deadly to moths, are retained in the
finished product. Mfgs. Agents: Moth-Pruf Products Co. 63 Park Row, New
York, N. Y. D. C. Kinnell & Co., Inc. Montclair, N. J. To Secure Maximum
Protection Just as your furs and clothing are cleaned by the storage firms
so should you clean or thoroughly brush and air your clothes before storing
in this Moth-Pruf cedar product. Pay special attention to seams, crevices and
pockets. If care is taken, it will give your clothes the moth protection you
desire. Reg. U. S. Pat. Off.", borne on the label affixed to each of the cabinets,
were false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the article was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they represented that
the article would kill moths and would furnish protection against moths under
all conditions; whereas it would not kill moths and would not furnish protec-
tion against moths under all conditions.
On October 10, 1935, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the
defendant company, the court imposed a fine of $35.
W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1429. Adulteration and misbranding of calcium arsenate. U. S. v. The Sherwin-
Williams Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $400. (I. & F. no. 1655. Dom. no.
50372. Sample no. 3399-A.)


This case was based on interstate
tained arsenic in water-soluble form,
oxide in water-soluble form in propo
label, and which would be injurious
directions.


On November 13, 1933, the
Jersey, acting upon a report by
court an information against
Brook, N. J., alleging shipment
from the State of New Jerse;
February 4, 1932, from the St
quantities of calcium arsenal
insecticide, other than paris gr


shipments of calcium arsenate which con-
expressed as metallic arsenic, and arsenic
rtions much greater than declared on the
to certain plants when used according to


United States attorney for the District of New
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
the Sherwin-Williams Co., a corporation, Bound
t by said company on or about February 3, 1932,
y into the State of Michigan, and on or about
ate of New Jersey into the State of Illinois, of
te which was an adulterated and misbranded
'een and lead arsenic, within the meaning of the


Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements,


"Arsenic in


water soluble form (expressed as metallic Arsenic) not more than 0.5% *
Arsenic oxide in water soluble form, not more than .75%", borne on the label,
represented that it contained arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as metal-
lie arsenic, in the proportion of not more than 0.5 percent, and that it con-
tained arsenic oxide in water-soluble form in the proportion of not more
than 0.75 percent, whereas the strength and purity of the article fell below the
professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since it contained


arsenic in water-soluble form expressed as metallic arsenic in
much greater than 0.5 percent and contained arsenic oxide in v
form in a proportion much greater than 0.75 percent.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements,
water soluble form (expressed as metallic Arsenic) not more than 0
Arsenic oxide in water soluble form, not more than .75%", "Used


a proportion
rater-soluble


"Arsenic in
.5% *
for the con-


trol of most leaf-eating insects in the garden.", and "For Cotton Boll Weevil-








262


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


W. R. GRMGo, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


31. Adulteration and misbranding of Aeme 2 Way Spray. U. S. v. Aeme
White Lead & Color Works. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (I. & F. no.
1775. Sample no. 5163-B.)
This product contained a smaller proportion of active ingredients and a larger


proportion of
ous when use
On April 8,
York, acting
court an info
tion, trading


in
d o
19
up(
rm
at


ert ingredie
n certain v
35, the Uni
)n a report
ation again
Buffalo, N.


May 16, 1984, from the Sta
a quantity of Acme 2 Way
insecticide (other than pari


nts
ege
ted
by


than declared on the label, and would be injuri-
tation for which it was recommended as a spray.
States attorney for the Western District of New
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district


st the Acme White Lead & Color Works, a corpora-
Y., alleging shipment by said company on or about
te of New York into the State of Massachusetts of
SSpray which was an adulterated and misbranded
s green and lead arsenate) and fungicide within the


meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "A combina-
tion spray for gardens and certain fruit trees composed of 14.5% Arsenate of
Lead Total Active Ingredients 25.5% Arsenate of Lead 14.5% Inert Ingredients
74.5% Total Arsenic (expressed as percentum of Metallic Arsenic) not less
than 2.80%", borne on the package label, represented that its standard and
quality were such that it contained arsenate of lead in the proportion of
not less than 14.5 percent, that it contained total active ingredients in a propor-
tion of not less than 25.5 percent, that it contained total arsenic expressed as
percentum of metallic arsenic in the proportion of not less than than 2.80
percent, and that it contained inert ingredients in the proportion of not more
than 74.5 percent; whereas its strength and purity were such that it contained
arsenate of lead in a proportion less than 14.5 percent, total active ingredients
in a proportion less than 25.5 percent, contained total arsenic expressed as
percentum of metallic arsenic in a proportion less than 2.80 percent, and con-
tained inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 74.5 percent.
mX T .r1 t. i* 1. I_ .T _- ___S -_ f j-. .- _j ^T


14


1430. Misbranding of Termox Moth Tabs. U. S. v. Termo Ohenmical Co. Plea
of guilty. Fine, $10. (I. & F. no. 1763. Sample no. 64665-A.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of a product intended for use
as an insecticide, which was misbranded because of unwarranted claims in the
labeling regarding its alleged effectiveness in the control of moths.
On February 13, 1935, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Termo Chemical Co., a corporation,
Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment by said company on or about May 10, 1934, from
the State of Illinois into the State of Wisconsin of a quantity of Termox Moth
Tabs, which product was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "For best
results use 1 tablet to every 5 cubic feet of space", borne on each of the tablets,
was false and misleading, and by reason of the said statement the article was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it represented that the
article, when used in unconfined space, would act as an effective control of
moths; whereas it would not act as an effective control of moths when used in
unconfined space.
On October 11, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $10.


1







1426-1450]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


263


so used on all sour cherry trees but would be seriously injurious
of certain varieties of sour cherry trees.
On October 21, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of
company and the court imposed a fine of $100.
W. R. GREGG. AOctinf Secretary of


J ..,


to the foliage

the defendant

Agriculture.


1432. Adulteration and misbranding of Formoclor. IU. S. v. Arthur Beck
(Arthur Beck Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $20 and costs. (I. & F. no.
1782. Sample no. 71454-A.)
This product contained a smaller proportion of the active ingredient and
a larger proportion of the inert ingredients than declared on the label. The
labels also bore false and misleading claims regarding its strength and its
alleged germicidal and antiseptic properties, and other misrepresentations.
On April 25, 1935, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-


trict court an information against Arthur
Co., Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment by sai
1934, from the State of Illinois, into the S
Formoclor, which was an adulterated and


Beck, trading as the Arthur Beck
d defendant on or about May 15,
tate of Colorado, of a quantity of
misbranded fungicide within the


meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements on the
label, "Sodium hypochlorite 6% Inert matter (water) 94%", represented that
its standard and quality were such that it contained not less than 6 percent of
sodium hypochlorite and not more than 94 percent of inert matter; whereas its
strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which
it was sold, since it contained less than 6 percent of sodium hypochlorite,
namely, approximately 2.23 percent, and it contained more than 94 percent of
inert matter, namely, approximately 97.77 percent.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the following statements,
"Sodium hypochlorite 6% Inert matter (water) 94%" borne on the label, were
false and misleading, and by reason of the said statement the article was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they represented
that the article contained sodium hypochlorite in the proportion of not less
than 6 percent, contained inert matter in a proportion of not more than 94
percent, and contained water only as an inert ingredient; whereas the article
contained less than 6 percent of sodium hypochlorite, it contained inert matter
in excess of 94 percent, and did not contain water only as an inert ingredient
but did contain other inert substances, namely, sodium chloride, sodium
carbonate, and sodium hydroxide.
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the following state-
ments, "Non-Poisonous Although Non-Poisonous Abso-
lutely Non-Poisonous", "Formoclor Sterilizer Formoclor
is recommended as an ideal disinfectant, germicide, antiseptic,
sterilizer and deodorant of exceptional strength and purity for
sterilizing food containers and utensils of all kinds, vegetables (preparatory
to cooking) drinking water, milk cans and bottles (nursing bottles, nipples,
etc.)", "Formoclor has 12 times the germicidal strength of pure carbolic acid
(Phenol) and is more than 200 times stronger in antiseptic effect than Peroxide
of Hydrogen (U. S. P. 3%)", "Cooking utensils, dishes, cups, glasses, sterilize


in solution of one tablespoon Formoclor to
in hot water. Dairy machinery, brewing
ing wash with solution of one-half ounce
follow with thorough rinse of hot water


each gallon water. Rinse thoroughly
and bottling machinery, for steriliz-
Formoclor to each gallon water and
", "Drinking water-Sterilize with 3








264


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


unless previously cleaned, and would
the dilution specified (tablespoonful
when used as directed, it would n
sterilize wash basins, would not act
and would not disinfect cuspidors, gar
dirt be first removed.
On October 22, 1935, the defendant
imposed a fine of $20 and costs.


not act as an effective disinfectant at
or half-ounce to gallon of water); and
ot sterilize drinking water, would not
as an effective disinfectant of drains,
bage receptacles, etc., unless all filth and


entered


a plea of


guilty


the court


W. R.


GREGG, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1433.


Misbranding of Moth Fumigator sets. U. S. v. Clean Home Products, Inc.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $10 and costs. (I. & F. no. 1788. Sample nos.
61280-A, 65072-A.)


This
alleged
On A
Illinois,
trict cou
Chicago,


produ<
effecti
)ril 22
acting
irt an
Ill.,


:t was
veness
, 1935,
Supon
inform
alleging


labeled with false and misleading claims regarding its
as a control for moths.
the United States attorney for the Northern District of
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
iation against the Clean Home Products, Inc., trading at
; shipment by said company on or about July 31, 1933,


from the State of Illinois into the Stati
ary 15, 1934, from the State of Illinois
of Moth Fumigator sets which constitute
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article consisted of a mechanical
The article was alleged to be misbra
in the labeling, (display carton) "Kills
gator Only 30 minutes Every 30 days",
package Apex Moth Electric Fumigator"
Fumigator Directions Place a Fumicak
the Fumigator in the closet on a hook.
anything and as high as convenient as
operation are much heavier than air ai
plug in any (105-120 Volt D. C. or A. C


in the closet the five foot el
sufficient. If it is necessary


cord
ach a


e of Michigan, and on or about Febru-
into the State of Ohio, of quantities


;ed a misbra

I vaporator,
ended in tha
Moths Quick


nded insecticide within the


each with six refill cakes.
t the following statements
Electric Apex Moth Fumni-


(sticker from carton lid) "Combination
, (larger circular) "Electric Apex Moth


in the cup
It should b
the fumes
i go downy
outlet. If
included in


of the Fumigator. Hang
e hung free from touching
that are given off during
rard. Connect the electric
there is an electric socket
this euuiument should be


distant outlet or lamp, the


plug may


be attached to an extension cord. Turn on the electricity and close the closet
door as tightly as possible. In a few minutes the Fumicake will melt and
then will start to evaporate giving off powerful fumes that kill all stages of
moth life." Fumicake will not stain or injure the daintiest or finest of fabrics,
furs, etc. The fumes that are given off will penetrate all clothes and fabrics,
inside as well as outside. After 30 to 45 minutes turn off the electricity but
keep the closet door closed for an additional half hour or longer thus continu-


ing ti


) confine


the fumes.


At any


time thereafter the clothes may be removed


from the closet and can be worn at once, as the heavy fumes quickly leave
the garments odorless. After removing a Fumicake from the cellophane pack-
age always twist the cellophane at the top to prevent evaporation of the remain-


ing Fumicakes. Moths
every closet every 30 d
quickly. Use only Apex
This is the new, quick,
clothes, blankets, furs,
* Electric Apex
P'nminn tinn Pacra aO


know
ays or
Moth
conven


no season. Fumigation
Less. This is the sure
Fumicake in the Electric
lent and handy method to


bathing suits,
Moth Fumigato
Prion k1 (WI


sl
V
A
1


woolens, etc., a
r and six Apex M
fliiin1r onnranian-


houl
ray
pex
prot
gain
:oth
im


be repeated


to kill moth life
Moth Fumigator.
ect your valuable
st moth damage
Fumicake Refills
nilorn mothlt fin


.


.d








1426-1450]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


265


1484. Misbranding of Tennrmox Roach Destroyer. U. S. v. Termo Chemical Co.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $10. (I. & F. no. 1789. Sample no. 64664-A.)
This product was misbranded because of misrepresentations in the labeling
that it was nonpoisonous and that sulphur, one of the ingredients, was effective
min the control of roaches.
On April 22, 1935, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against the Termo Chemical Co., a corporation, Chicago,
Ill., alleging shipment by said company on or about August 24, 1933, from the
State of Illinois into the State of Wisconsin, of a quantity of Termox Roach


Destroyer whi
Insecticide Act
The article v
is not poisonous
Sulphur .. .
reason of said


ch was a misbranded insecti<
, of 1910.
ras alleged to be misbranded in
s to people or to household pets",
. 20%", borne on the label, w
statements the article was lab


ide


within


the meaning


of the


that the statements, "* it
, and "Active Ingredients *
-ere false and misleading, and by
eled so as to deceive and mislead


the purchaser, in that they represented that the article would not be poisonous
to people or to household pets and that sulphur was an active ingredient of the
article, i. e., that sulphur would prevent, destroy, or mitigate roaches; whereas
it would be poisonous to people and to household pets and sulphur was not an
active ingredient, since sulphur would not prevent, destroy, or mitigate roaches.
On October 11, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $10.
W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1435. Misbranding of Odora Moth Cake, Odora Packet De<
Destroyer, Perfumed Ball Blocks, Mothex Cedari
Mothex Para Moth Pellets. IU. S. v. Odora Co., In<
Fine, $200. (I. & F. no. 1795. Sample nos. 67244-A, 6
67922-A, incl., 69814-A, 69815-A, 71815-A.)
These products were labeled with false and misleading claim
alleged effectiveness in the control of moths.
On November 15, 1935, the United States attorney for the
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agric
district court an information against the Odora Co., Inc.,
alleging shipment by said company on the approximate date
10, March 21, March 27, and March 30, 1934, from the State


the States of New
described products
the Insecticide Act
Cake for Closets *
and Moth Destroye
* Odora Co
* Made By


odorant and Moth
zed Tablets, and
e. Plea of guilty.
17249-A, 67920-A to

ms regarding their

Southern District
culture, filed in the
New York, N. Y.,
s March 1, March
of New York into


Jersey and Massachusetts of quantities of the following
which were misbranded insecticides within the meaning of
of 1910. The articles were labeled, variously: "Odora Moth


*
r *
., Inc.
Roseth


Od
*
New
Ch


Moth Pellets Roseth
The articles were alleged to
in the labeling, (Odora Moth
An excellent moth destroyer.
space. Safe and efficient", (Odd
Destroys Moth and Moth Eggs.
in closets, drawers, chests, etc.'
ers Hang in Closets
Garments", (Mothex Cedarized


ra Co., Inc., N. Y. 0."; "Odora Packet Deodorant
Odora Company, Inc."; "Perfumed Ball Blocks
York"; "Mothex Cedarized Tablets
emical Div. Inc. Bk'lyn, N. Y."; "Mothex Para
Chem. Div. Inc. Brooklyn, N. Y."
be misbranded in that the following statements
Cake) "Odora Moth Cake for Closets *
Use 1 Moth Cake to each 15 cu. ft. of confined
ora Packet) "The Most Efficient Moth Destroyer.
Use 1 Packet for each 20 cu. ft. of confined space
", (Perfumed Ball Blocks) "in Mesh Bag Hang-
, Wardrobes, etc. Do not place Directly upon
Tablets) "Kills Moths and Moth Eggs. *


Mothex the Sunerior Moth Destroyer. Safe. Effective. economical. I


[hreetinns~


.








266


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I, F.


moth protection under all conditions when used as directed and the Mothex
Para Moth Pellets would not kill moths and moth eggs when used as directed.
On December 2, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $200.
W. R. Guzao, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1436. Adulteration of Green Tox 50. U. S. v. Bonide Chemical Co., Inc. Plea
of guilty. Fine, $1. (I. & F. no. 1798. Sample no. 37054-A.)
This product was sold as an insecticide and contained inert ingredients, i. e.,


substances which would not be effective for the purposes
tended, in excess of the amount declared on the label.
On October 21, 1935, the United States attorney for the
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Ag
district court an information against the Bonide Chemical
alleging shipment by said company on or about March 14,
of New York into the State of Oregon, of a quantity of Grn


an adulterated insecticide other than paris
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterate
gredients 81.8%", borne on the bottle label,
ingredients in the proportion of not more tha
and purity fell below the professed stand
sold, since it contained inert ingredients in
cent.
On October 21, 1935, a plea of guilty was
company and the court imposed a fine of $1


for which it was inm-


SNorthern District of
riculture, filed in the
Co., Inc., Utica, N. Y.,
, 1933, from the State
een Tox 50 which was


green and lead arsenate within the

1 in that the statement, "Inert In-
represented that it contained inert
n 81.8 percent; whereas its strength
rd and quality under which it was
a proportion greater than 81.8 per-

entered on behalf of the defendant
-.


W. R. Giuo, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


Adulteration and misbranding of Radiant Garden Spray. U. S.
way Chemical Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $20. (I. & F. no. 1801.
no. 40262-A.)


v. Mid-
Sample


This product contained a smaller percentage of the active ingredients and
a larger percentage of the inert ingredient than declared on the label and,
when used as directed, would not be effective in the control of certain insects
for which it was recommended as an insecticide and would be injurious to


certain
On J
Illinois,
trict co
trading
9, 1933.
Radian
within
The
Arsenic
51%, A
quality


vegetation.
une 6, 1935, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
kurt an information against the Midway Chemical Co., a corporation,
at Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment by said company on or about June
, from the State of Illinois into the State of Ohio of a quantity of
t Garden Spray which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Total
, Expressed as Metallic, all in water soluble form, 1%; Inert: Water
alcohol 9%", borne on the can label, represented that its standard and
were such that it contained total arsenic, expressed as metallic, in


the proportio
of not more
less than 9 p
the professed
total arsenic,
4. c a a^ A3' .->inn ./


n of not less than 1 percent, contained
than 51 percent, and contained alcohol
percent; whereas the strength and purity
standard and quality under which it was
expressed as metallic, in a proportion


water in the proportion
in the proportion of not
of the article fell below
sold, in that it contained
less than 1 percent, con-
f a J- A q j -* -L j Wt n 4 n ^ ak A a~ 1 -- ant a 1 i 4


1437.








1426-1450]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


267


proportion greater than 51 percent, and contained alcohol in a proportion less
than 9 percent, and, when used as directed, would not act as an effective
insecticide against plant insects, such as leaf rollers, cabbage worms, cut-
worms, rose chafers, leaf tiers, and many others, would not exterminate all
plant and garden beetles; would not act as an effective insecticide against all
types of garden insects on plants, vegetables, flowers, etc.; would not kill all
bugs; and when used as directed could not be safely so used on all plants,
but such use would be injurious to many plants.
On October 16, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $20.
W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1438. Adulteration and misbranding of Formkolene and misbranding of Klo-
mine Junior. U. S. v. Aeme Chemical Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $10.
(I. & F. no. 1812. Sample nos. 60925-A, 64341-A, 2800-B.)
These products were sold as disinfectants and were both below the strength
declared on the label. The Formkolene contained an inert ingredient in excess
of the amount declared and would not be an effective disinfectant when used
according to directions at the dilutions recommended.
On July 11, 1935, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wis-
consin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court, an information against the Acme Chemical Co., a corporation, Milwaukee,
Wis., alleging shipment by said company on or about March 16, March 23, and
June 26, 1934, from the State of Wisconsin into the State of Indiana, of quantities
of Formkolene and Klomine Junior which were adulterated and/or misbranded
fungicides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The Formkolene was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Co-
efficient 3 to 4 times Carbolic Acid. Inert matter 92% water Co-
efficiency 3 to 4 times Carbolic Acid", borne on the label affixed to the carboys,
represented that the standard and quality of the article were such that it con-
tained inert matter, namely, water, in the proportion of not more than 92
percent and that it possessed a phenol coefficient of not less than 3; whereas
the strength and purity of the said article fell below the professed standard and
quality under which it was sold, in that it contained more than 92 percent of
water and possessed a phenol coefficient much lower than 3, the two samples
examined having a phenol coefficient of 0.1 and 0.2, respectively.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to both products for the reason that the
statements, (Formkolene) "Coefficient 3 to 4 times Carbolic Acid. Inert
matter 92% water Coefficiency 3 to 4 times Carbolic Acid *
Analysis Remarks Phenol Coefficient Determined by the
U. S. Hygienic Laboratory method", and "Spray Formkolene into toilets, cloak
rooms, gymnasiums, lockers, etc., spraying the entire premises. When scrubbing
floors or washing walls or woodwork use a three per cent solution. After wash-
ing cuspidors or slop jars add a small quantity of a three per cent solution of


Formkolene. Sick rooms in hospitals, scrub floors and wash walls and
work, as above", and Klomine Junior "Phenol Coefficiency 3.18 *
Bactericidal Test Phenol Coefficient 350/100=3.18", borne (
labels, were false and misleading, and by reason of the said statement
articles were labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in tha
represented that the Formkolene contained inert matter, water, in the i
tion of not more than 92 percent, that it had a phenol coefficient of n
than 3 and would act as an effective disinfectant when used at a 3-i
solution in the places indicated on the label and that the Klomine Junior
A STT .. Ai v n -En. I" *j ~


wood-
*
on the
its the
t they
)ropor-
ot less
percent


had a
i S


r~







268


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


On August 8, 1935, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Alabama, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Dixie Chemical Products Co., Inc.,


Birmingham, Ala.,
from the State of
Creofectant which
ing of the Insectic
The article was
borne on the can


alleging shipment by said company on or about May 4, 1934,
Alabama into the State of North Carolina of a quantity of
was a misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the mean-
ide Act of 1910.
alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements
label, "Coal Tar Disinfectant used by the Government in


Building the Panama Canal", was false and misleading, and by reason of the
said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the pur-
chaser, in that it represented that the article was one endorsed by the Gov-
ernment; whereas it was not one endorsed by the Government
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the following state-
ments borne on the can label, "Will Quickly Destroy Foul Odors and Disease
Germs For Garbage Boxes, privy vaults, cesspools; to destroy both
the bad odors and germs, use one pint to five gallons of water Two


ounces (about two tablespoonfuls) to one gallon of fresh
effective and handy disinfectant for general uses. Pour
Disinfectant. Directions and Uses For Rinsing
the Laundry it will not stain the finest fabrics, use
bucket of water. To keep the air sweet and
schools, hospitals, hotels, factories, sprinkle freely", "I
streets, alleys, sidewalks, etc., should be sprinkled with
one quart to a barrel of water", "For House Plants,
sprinkle with a mixture of a tablespoonful to a gallon
Use in the Sick Room. To prevent the spread of infection


fever, mea
etc., wash


sles, diphtheria,
the floor, walls


water makes a strong,
The Water Into The
Water in Washing or
one teaspoonful to a
clean in public places
duringg Epidemics the
a watering cart, using
flowers, shrubs, etc.,


)us


typhus, pneumonia, consumption,
, and furniture. Sprinkle freely


clothes dipped in the solution around the room. Sp
should contain the solution, and clothes and dishes used
soaked with it before being taken from the sick room, u
ounces to a gallon of water", were false and misleading,
said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive
chaser, since the article, when used as directed, would not
and all disease germs; would not disinfect privy vaults
not as an effective disinfectant for general use when
of 2 tablespoonsful to a gallon of water; would not ac
rinsing water and in the laundry, when used in the dil
to a bucket of water; would not keep the air sweet and
value in controlling epidemics; would not be of value
not prevent the spread of infectious diseases, such as


itto
by


water",
diseases,
cholera,
everywhe
ons and
the sick


and "For
as scarlet
influenza,
re. Hang
chambers
should be


sing the strength, two
and by reason of the
and mislead the pur-
t destroy all foul odors
and cesspools; would
used in the dilution
t as a disinfectant in
ution of 1 teaspoonful
clean; would not be of
on plants; and would
scarlet fever, measles,


diphtheria, typhus, pneumonia, consumption, cholera, influenza, etc.
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article consisted
partially of an inert substance, that is, a substance that does not prevent, de-
stroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi, and the name and percentage amount
of the said inert substance present therein were not stated plainly and cor-
rectly, or at all, on the can label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and
percentage amount of each and every substance or ingredient of the article
having insecticidal or fungicidal properties, and the total percentage of the
inert substance present therein stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the
label.







1426-1450]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


269


into the State
Co. at Tampa,
Act of 1910.
The article w
"6 Pounds Net
mislead the pu
was less than 6


of Florida, that it had been received by the Sherwin-Williams
Fla., and that it was misbranded in violation of the Insecticide

as alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the boxes,
Weight", was false and misleading and tended to deceive and
rchaser, since the weight of the contents of each of the boxes
pounds.


On October 9, 1935, the Sherwin-Williams Co., claimant, having admitted the
allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment
of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be released
under bond conditioned that it be relabeled under the supervision of this
Department.


W. R.


GREGG, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1441. Adulteration and mis
branding of Cresol
Solomon Turk (Tur
of guilty. Sentence
Sample nos. 10614-B,
This case involved two lot
requirements of the United
coefficient than represented
regarding its disinfectant
Fluid which contained less
misrepresentations as to it


control for certain insects.
On August 28, 1935, the
Pennsylvania, acting upon
the district court an info
Turk and Solomon Turk,
alleging shipment by said
1910 on or about June 16


branding of Risal Liquor Cresolis Comp., and mis-
in Disinfecting Fluid. U. S. v. Teresa Turk and
k Drug Co.). Plea of nolo contender. Judgment
e of 6 months probation imposed. (I. & F. no. 1817.
18174-B, 18175-B.)
s of Risal Liquor Cresolis Comp. which fell below the
States Pharmacopoeia, which had a lower phenol
, and which bore on the label misrepresentations
properties; also one lot of Cresolin Disinfecting
carbolic acid than declared and was labeled with
s alleged effectiveness as a disinfectant and as a


Both products contained undeclared inert ingredients.
United States attorney for the Eastern District of
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
rmation (amended Sept. 10, 1935) against Teresa
trading as the Turk Drug Co., Philadelphia, Pa.,
defendants in violation of the Insecticide Act of
and September 24, 1934, from the State of Pennsyl-


vania into the State of New Jersey, of quantities of Risal Liq
Comp., which was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide, and
September 24, 1934, from the State of Pennsylvania into the St
Jersey of a quantity of Cresolin Disinfecting Fluid which was a
insecticide and fungicide.
The Liquor Cresolis Comp. was alleged to be adulterated in tha
ments "Liquor Cresolis Comp. (Phenol Coef. 4 plus)", borne on
label, represented that its standard and quality were such that it c4
ingredients prescribed by the United States Pharmacopoeia for liq
compositus and that it possessed a phenol coefficient of 4 olus:
strength and purity of the article fell below the professed standard
-under which it was sold since it did not contain the ingredients pr


liquor cresolis compositus by the pharmacopoeia,
tar acids other than cresol, and soap other than
sessed a phenol coefficient much lower than 4 plus
of approximately 0.2 (F. D. A. method).
Adulteration of the liquor cresolis compositus
reason that other substances, namely, water, tar
soap other than linseed-oil soap, had been substit
scribed for liquor cresolis compositus by the phar


th


or Cresolis
on or about
ate of New
misbranded


tt the state-
the bottle
3ntained the
[uor cresolis
whereas the
and quality
described for


but did contain more water,
linseed-oil soap, and it pos-
, namely, a phenol coefficient


was alleged for
acids other than


the further
cresol, and


uted for the ingredients pre-


nacopoeia.


Misbranding of the liquor cresolis compositus was alleged for the
e statements. "Liuuor Cresolis Comp. (Phenol Coef. 4 plus)"


reason
and "Di


that
isin-







270


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N, J., I. '.


labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they represented that
the article, when used as directed, would act as a disinfectant in the sickroom
for cleaning bedpans, chamber pots, walls, and woodwork and in house cleaning
and would be effective against roaches, vermin, etc., and contained carbolic acid
in the proportion of not less than 6 percent; whereas the article when used as
directed would not act as an effective disinfectant in the sick room for cleaning
bedpans, chamber pots, walls, and woodwork or in house cleaning, and would
not be effective against roaches, vermin, etc., and it contained carbolic acid in
a proportion much lower than 6 percent, namely, but a trace of carbolic acid.


Misbranding was alleged with respect to I
reason that they consisted partially of inert s
in the case of liquor cresolis compositus and wi
Disinfecting Fluid, which inert substances do
mitigate fungi (bacteria), or insects and the
of each inert substance or ingredient of the
or correctly on the label; nor, in lieu thereof,
amount of each substance or ingredient of the
fungicidal properties and the total percentage


)oth produ
substances,
water in the
not prevent
name and
article were


cts for the 'further
water and glycerin
case of the Cresolin
it, destroy, repel, or
percentage amount
e not stated plainly


were the name and percentage
articles having insecticidal or
of the inert substances or in-


gredients so present therein stated plainly and correctly on the bottle labels.
The information also alleged that the Liquor Cresolis Comp. was further
adulterated and misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, reported
in notice of judgment no. 25127 published under that act.
On December 2, 1935, the defendants entered pleas of nolo contender, were
adjudged guilty, and were sentenced to 6 months on probation.


Wilt.


GEGG, Acting


Secretary of


AgricuJt'wre.


1442. Adulteration of pine oil disinfectant and creosote emulsion. U. S. v.
C. Beverly Hill (Hill Bros. Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $20.
(I. & F. no. 1818. Sample nos. 12511-B, 12512-B.)
This case covered shipments of pine oil disinfectant which was adulterated
with mineral oil, and creosote emulsion which was adulterated with mineral oil


and pine oil.
On August 15, 1935, the United States
California, acting upon a report by the
district court an information against C.
ment ,and hereinafter referred to as a
Hill Bros. Chemical Co, Los Angeles
defendant on or about October 18, 1934,


attorney for the Southern District of
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
Beverly Hill, at the time of the ship-
member of a partnership trading as


, Calif., alleging shipment
and January 4, 1935, from


of California into the State of Arizona, of quantities of
Disinfectant ,and Certified Creosote Emulsion which were
cides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that the st
Pine Oil Disinfectant" and "Certified Creosote Emulsion", 1
represented that their standard and quality were such thia


pine-oil disi
and purity
which they
mixture of
consisted of
Adulterat


nfectant
of the a
were s
pine-oil
Scoal-tari
ion was


Sand creosote er
articles fell below
old, in that the
disinfectant and
Sacids, soap, wat
,alleged for the


substituted for pine oil in


the pine


nulsion, respectively


- the professed
said pine oil
mineral oil an
er, mineral oil,
further reason
oil disinfectant


by said
the State


Certified Pine Oil
adulterated fungi-

atements, "Certified
borne on the labels,
Lt they consisted of


whereas


the strength


standard and quality under
disinfectant consisted of a
d the said creosote emulsion
and pine oil.
That mineral oil had been
it, and mineral oil and pine


oil had been substituted in part for creosote oil in the creosote emulsion.
On September 3, 1935, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court








1426-1450]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


271


The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of
inert substances, namely, substances other than naphthalene, sulphur, and lead
arsenate, that is to say, substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or miti-
gate insects and the name and percentage amount of each and every inert in-
gredient so present in the article were not stated plainly and correctly on the
can label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount of each
substance or ingredient of the article having insecticidal properties, and the
lotal percentage of the inert substances or ingredients so present therein, stated
plainly and correctly on the label.
On November 27, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defend-
ant company and the court imposed a fine of $200.
W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1444. Adulteration and misbranding of Amerco Dry Insecticide. U. S. v. 2
Cans of Amerco Dry Insecticide. Default decree of condemnation and
destruction. (I. & F. no. 1829. Sample no. 33115-B.)
This product contained less naphthalene, less total active ingredients, and
a larger amount of inert ingredients than declared, and would not afford the
protection against insects claimed for it on the labels.
On August 27, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of two cans, each containing 190
pounds of Amerco Dry Insecticide at Omaha, Nebr., alleging that the article
had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 13, 1934, by the
Amerco Feed & Milling Co., from Council Bluffs, Iowa, and charging adultera-
tion and misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it fell below the professed
standard and quality under which it was offered for sale, namely, it contained
less active ingredients, less naphthalene, and more inert ingredients than stated
on the label.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Active Ingredi-
ents Thirty Six Percent Napthalene Thirty Percent Total
Inert Matter Sixty Four Percent", on the can label, were false and misleading
and were intended to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the following statements
on the can label, "For Cucumbers Squash and Melon Vines at Planting Time
Sprinkle The Ground Thoroughly After the Seeds have been Covered After The
Plants Have Begun to Form Leaves Sprinkle the Leaves Lightly With Dry
Insecticide Repeat Treatment in Ten Days to Two Weeks", were false and
misleading and were intended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the
article, when used as directed, would not be effective against all insects infest-
ing cucumber, squash, and melon vines.
On October 16, 1935, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
W. R. Gume, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1445, Misbranding of Stick-Tite Lice Destroyer.
(National Poultry Products Co.). Plea of
no. 1833. Sample no. 35626-B.)
Sample cans of the product involved in this c
less than the weight declared on the label.
On October 21, 1935, the United States attorney
of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secreta


U. S.
guilty.


ase


v. Isaiah D.
Fine, $25.


were


y for
iry of


found


the Wester
Agricultur


Russell
(I. & F.


to contain

in District
e. filed in








272


INSECTICIDE


ACT


LN.JqI.t


1446. Misbranding of Zorite Disinfectant and Cleanser.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs. (I. & F.
29012-B.)
This product was misbranded because of unwarranted
alleged disinfectant and deodorant properties and othi
in the labeling and because of failure to declare the iner
On October 17, 1935, the United States attorney for t
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Ag
district court an information against the Zoro Co., a corj


alleging shipment by
State of Illinois into
infectant and Cleanse
of the Insecticide Act
The article was all
borne on the carton
the toilet bowl Zorite
ing disease carrying
will disinfect *


said company on or about
the State of Massachusetts,


r which w
of 1910.
eged to be
label, "Zo:
is 3 times
germs *
* The


U. S. v. The Zero Co.
no. 1834. Sample no.
claims regarding its
er misrepresentations
t ingredients present.
the Northern District
riculture, filed in the
)oration, Chicago, Ill.,
sr 11, 1934, from the
lantity of Zorite Dis-


as a misbranded fungicide within


misbranded in
rite Disinfectant
more powerful
* and whei
odor of Zorite


the meaning


that the following statements
When flushed into
than Carbolic Acid in destroy-
i flushed into the toilet bowl,
Disinfectant Non-


Poisonous", were false and misleading, and for the further reason
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that the sai
represented that the article, when used as directed, would act
fectant, would be more powerful than carbolic acid and would dis
bowls, and was nonpoisonous; whereas the article, when used
would not act as a disinfectant, would not be more powerful than c
would not disinfect toilet bowls and was not nonpoisonous.
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the artic


that it was
d statement
as a disin-
infect toilet
as directed,
arbolic acid,


le


consisted


completely of inert substances or ingredients, i. e., substances that do not
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria), and the name and the
percentage amount of each inert ingredient so present in the article were not
stated plainly and correctly on the carton label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the
name and percentage amount of each ingredient of the article having fungicidal
(bactericidal) properties, and the total percentage of the inert ingredients so
present therein stated plainly and correctly on the carton label.
On December 18, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defend-


ant company and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
W. R. GREGG, Acting Secretary


Agriculture.


1447. Misbranding of Eureka Sanitizing Compound. U. S. v. Eureka Vacuum
Cleaner Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (I. & F. no. 1836. Sample nos.
31834-B, 39167-B.)


This case was based on a shipment of an insecticide
was short of the declared weight.
On October 30, 1935, the United States attorney for
of Michigan, acting upon a report by the Secretary of
the district court an information against the Eureka
a corporation, Detroit, Mich., alleging shipment by said
March 13 and June 4, 1935, from the State of Michigan int
of quantities of Eureka Sanitizing Compound which was


fungicide


the Eastern


which


District


Agriculture, filed in
Vacuum Cleaner Co.,
company on or about
o the State of Illinois,
a misbranded insecti-


cide and fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement,
ton contains five 3-ounce cakes (Net weight 15 ounces)", borne on


label, was false and
was labeled so as to


misleading and by reason of said statement
deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the


1910.
"This car-
the carton
the article
cartons did







1426-1450]


XOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


273


pany on or about April 4, 1935, from the State of New
of Montana, and on or about May 10, 1935, from the
into the State of Pennsylvania, of quantities of Key Br
was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the I
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that t
ingredients Sodium arsenate 19%", borne on the can
misleading, since the said statement represented that
sodium arsenate as an active ingredient; whereas it c
nite as an active ingredient.
On November 27, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered
fendant company and the court imposed a fine of $200.
W. R. GREGO, Acting Secre


Jersey into the State
State of New Jersey
and Ant Killer which
insecticide Act of 1910.
he statement, "Active
label, was false and
the article contained
contained sodium arse-

on behalf of the de-


tary


Agriculture.


1449. Misbranding of Termox Moth Proofing Crystals.
of Termox Moth Proofing Crystals. Default
and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1840. Sample no.
This product was misbranded because of misrepres


regarding its alleged effective
failure to declare the inert ing
On October 21, 1935, the Un
Missouri, acting upon a report
district court a libel praying
Termox Moth Proofing Crysta


12


less in
edient.


the control


U.S. v. 228 Packages
decree of condemnation
47135-B.)


mutations in


of moths,


he labeling
because of


ited States attorney for the Eastern District of
t by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
seizure and condemnation of 228 packages of
ls at St. Louis, Mo., alleging that the article


had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 30, 1935, by the
Termo Chemical Co., from Chicago, Ill., and charging misbranding in violation
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Termox
Products Moth Proofing Crystals A wonderful product for clothes
closets, dresser drawers, trunks, overstuffed furniture, or when packing away
furs, woolens, blankets, etc., in tight containers. Use one envelope to every
five cubic feet of confined space", were false and misleading and tended to
deceive and mislead purchasers, since it would not be effective against moths
when used as directed. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that
the article consisted partially of an inert substance, namely, sodium chloride,
which substance does not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the
name and percentage amount of the said inert substance or ingredient was
not plainly or correctly stated on the label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the
name and percentage amount of each substance having insecticidal properties
and the total percentage of inert substance stated plainly or correctly on the
label.
On November 26, 1935, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-
tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


W. R.


GRGQ, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1450. Misbranding of Dutch Maid Bowl Clean. U. S. v. 48 Dozen Cakes of
Dutch Maid Bowl Clean. Default decree of condemnation and destruc-
tion. (I. & F. no. 1841. Sample no. 37391-B.)
This product was misbranded because of misrepresentations on the label
regarding its alleged disinfectant and deodorant properties.
On October 22, 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 a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 48 dozen cakes
of Dutch Maid Bowl Clean at Bradford, Pa., alleging that the article had








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

11 11111 3III III 11111 11111 111 1 111 118 4lllllllllllllill
3 1262 08582 4877


INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1426-1450


2 Way Spray: N.
Acme White Lead & Color
Works _...------ -


Amerco Dry Insecticide:
Amerco Feed & Milling
Blue ointment:
Koster, W. D.-----
Petroline Laboratories-
Springer, Albert--
Calcium arsenate:
Sherwin-Williams Co .
Creofectant:
Dixie Chemical Products
Inc-


Co.~
----
- -


... -


Co


Creosote emulsion:
Hill Bros. Chemical Co ---
EHill, C. B --
Cresolin Disinfecting Fluid:
Turk Drug Co
Turk, Solomon_
Turk, Teresa ........ .
Dutch Maid Bowl Clean:
Daly, P. J., & Co------
Eureka SanitizingCompound :
Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Co-
Formkolene:
Acme Chemical Co_---
Formoclor:
Beck, Arthur ---- --........
Beck, Arthur, Co.------
Green Tox 50:
Bonide Chemical Co., Inc
Ideal Moth Block:
Sanidaire:
National Sales Chain Corpo-
ration .-...........-- -
Key Brand Ant Killer:
Interstate Chemical Manufac-
turing Co- .- ---.
Klomine Junior:
Acme Chemical Co------
Liquor cresolis compositus. See
Risal Liquor Cresolis Comp.


J. no.
1431
1444
1426
1426
1426
1429


1439
1442
1442
14412
1441
1441
1441
1450
1447
1438
1432
1432
1436


1427


Mag-0-Tite: N
Interstate Chemical Manufac-
turing Co- --.-.-- --- .
Moth Fumigator sets:
Clean Home Products, Ince.. --
Moth-Pruf Cabinets:
Kinnell, D. C., Co., Inc-..-_
Moth-Pruf Products Co..._._
Mother Cedarized Tablets:
Para Moth Pellets:
Odora Co., Ine. -..
Roseth Chemical Div., Inc...
Mulsoid Sulphur:
Sherman-Williams Co.---
Odora Moth Cake:
Packet Deodorant and Moth De-
stroyer :


Odora Co., Inc --.....- _
Perfumed Ball Blocks:
Odora Co. Inc .---.--...
Pine oil disinfectant:
Hill Bros. Chemical Co_
ill, C. B .. ..-- --.-. -_-____ -.
Radiant Garden Spray:
Midway Chemical Co ..
Risal Liquor Cresolis Comp.:
Turk Drug Co -- ----- .
Turk, Solomon- ... -
Turk, Teresa ......
San-Ideal Crystals:
National Sales Chain Corpo-
ration.....-..-------------
Stick-Tite Lice Destroyer:
National Poultry Products Co_
Russell, I. D -.. ---- --_
Termox Moth Proofing Crystals:
Termo Chemical Co -----
Moth Tabs:
Termo Chemical Co- -.--.
Roach Destroyer:
Termo Chemical Co -----
Zorite Disinfectant and Cleanser:
Zoro Co ----... ---


. J. no,
1448


1428
1428

1. 4
1485
1446


1435
1434
1442
1442


1487

14 1

1427
* ~.. .i



1445
1445
144
1446
14C4
1448


Acme