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:
AA00008549:00022

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text

:7?


3J5


N.J., I.F. 1451-1490


Issued


United


States


Department of


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


NOTICES


OF'


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]
1451-1490


[Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture,


Washington, D. C.,


November 10, 1936]


1451. Adulteration and misbranding of
Spray Chemical Corporation.
160i. Sample no. 1654-A.)
pta product contained a smaller p
larger percentage of inert ingredients
used as directed would not be an effec
lb inmended as an insecticide


Ortho Garden Caltox. TJ. S. v. California
Plea of guilty. Fine, $75. (I. & F. no.
percentage of the active ingredient and a
than declared on the label, and when
tive control for certain insects for which
!.


S~ M ary 4, 1985, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
it acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the California Spray Chemical Corpora-
ti8n tragng at Berkeley, Calif., alleging shipment by said company on or about
February 12, 1932, from the State of California into the State of Washington
of a quantity of Ortho Garden Caltox which was an adulterated and misbranded
a4t ide other than paris green and lead arsenate within the meaning of the
insecticide Act of 1910.
aTie article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Active
a giedient Barium Flnosilicate-50% Inert Ingredients- .50%", borne on the
eon label, represented that its standard and quality were such that it con-
Ained an active ingredient, barium fluosilicate, in a proportion of not less
than 50 percent and contained inert ingredients in a proportion not greater
Than 50 percent; whereas the strength and purity of the article fell below the
Vtofeise standard and quality under which it was sold, since it contained less
than 50 percent of barium fluosilicate and contained more than 50 percent of
nert ingredients.
: Misbrandihg was alleged for the reason that the following statements, "Active
edient-Bar Fluoslicate.50% Inert Ingredients -50% We
guarantee thi material to be true to label" and "For control of Beetles and
Oew Insects Directions and Uses 'Garden Caltox' is used
tikd ntrol of : cornborer squash bug wee-
J ;(sout beetles) codling moth; Experiments by United States De-
rt0en f Agriculture Entomologists indicate that Barium Fluosilicate may
Ssuebstituted for Lead Arsenate in controlling Codling Moth, thus reducing
1&Gi Arsenate Residue problem. Follow regular Lead Arsenate or Lead
Arsenate-Oil Spray program, substituting 'Orthe Garden Caltox' for the Lead
4bte in any or all sprays", borne on the carton label were false and mis-


I







276


INSECTICIDE


ACT


1452. Misbranding of ON Dog Soap, liquor eresolis compositus UI. S. P., and
Vaposector Fluid. U. S. v. West DIsinfecting Co., a corporation. Plea
of guilty. Fine, $100 on two counts; sentence suspended and de-
fendant placed upon probation with respect to the remaining counts.
(I. & F. no. 1827. Sample nos. 22001-B, 22628-B, 25983-B, 54581-A.)
The labels of these articles bore erroneous statements as follows: That the
ON Dog Soap was preventive of infestation of animals with ticks and other
parasites; that the liquor cresolis compositus possessed a phenol coefficient of not
less than 4.5; that the Vaposector Fluid was an effective insecticide against
moths and that it was nonpoisonous.
On December 12, 1935, the United States attorney for the Eastern District
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of 'Agriculture, filed in
the district court an information against the West Disinfecting Co., a corpora-
tion, Long Island City, N. Y., alleging shipment by it in violation of the Insecti-
cide Act of 1910, in the period from on or about January 4, 1934, to on or about
January 16, 1935, from the County of Queens, N. Y., to several places in other
States, of quantities of CN Dog Soapliquor cresolis compositus, U. S. P., and
Vaposector Fluid which were misbranded insecticides and fungicides within
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The articles were labeled in part: (Carton) "CN Dog Soap A West Guaran-
teed Product"; (drum) "Liquor Cresolis Compositus U. S. P. West Disinfecting
Company, Long Island City, N. Y."; (can) "Vaposector Fluid A New
Insecticide."
Misbranding of the CN Dog Soap was charged under the allegations that the
carton bore the statements, "CN Dog Soap Helps to prevent animal from becom-
ing infested! with ticks or other parasites. This will prove
an effective remedy against ticks and other parasites", that the said
statements were false and misleading, and that the article was labeled and
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that the said article
would not prevent animals from becoming infested with ticks and other
parasites.
Misbranding of the liquor cresolis compositus U. S. P. was charged under the
allegations that the label affixed to the drum bore the statements "Guaranteed
to be 4.5 times stronger bacteriologically than pure Carbolic Acid when tested
against a vigorous culture of B. Typhosus by the Hygienic Laboratory Phenol
Coefficient Method of the United States Public Health Service, or the F. D. A.
Method of the United States Department of Agriculture", that the said state-
ments were false and misleading, and that the article was labeled and branded
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that the article possessed a phenol
coefficient lower than 4.5, to wit, 2.0.
Misbranding of the Vaposector Fluid was charged under the allegations that
the label on the can bore the statements, "For moths, use
two ounces of Vaposector Fluid per 1,000 cubic feet For *
moths use two ounces per 1,000 cubic feet D. to *
moths", that the said statements were false and misleading, and that the article
was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that
the said article when used as directed would not act as an effective insecticide
against moths; and (b) under the allegations that the label on the can bore the
statement "Harmless to human beings" and that said statement was
false and misleading, and that the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive
and mislead the purchaser, in that the said statement purported and repre-
sented that said article was nonpoisonous when, in truth, the said article was
not nonpoisonous.
The information further charged that the CN Dog Soap also was misbranded







1451-1490]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


277


On April 29, 1986, 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 Ehrhart & Karl, Inc., a corporation, Chi-
ctgo, Ill., alleging shipment in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910, on or
about April 24, 1935, from Chicago, Ill., to Franklin, Ind., of a quantity of
SulifeKresol-Tabs which, was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of
the aforesaid act of Congress.


Misbranding of the article w
label affixed to the bottle bore
Disinfectant and is
or Corrosive Sublimate", that


ras charged (a) under the allegations that the
the statements, "Sulfo-Kresol-Tabs (CsON.SO.)
many times more powerful than Carbolic Acid
the article was not Sulfo-Kresol and did not


possess the formula (CsHoN.SO.); that the article would not act as an effective
disinfectant in the concentration or dosages recommended on the label and was
not more powerful than carbolic acid or corrosive sublimate, and that the
aforesaid statements were false and misleading and that thereby the article
was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser; (b) under
the allegations that the label bore the statements, "Disinfectant and deodorizer
for sick room, one tablet to one ounce of water", that the article when used
as directed would not act as an effective disinfectant for the sick room, that
the aforesaid statements were false and misleading and that thereby the
article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser;


(c) under the allegations that the article consisted partially of an inert
stance or ingredient, milk sugar, that the name and percentage amount of
said inert ingredient were not plainly and correctly stated on the label;
in lieu thereof, were the name and the percentage amount of each and e
Ingredient of the article having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties and
total percentage of the inert ingredients present therein, stated plainly
correctly on the label.
It also was charged in the information that the article was misbranded u
the Food and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment no. 25802 public,
under that act.
On May 25, 1936, a plea of guilty having been entered, a fine of $50
costs was imposed for violation of both acts.


sub-
the
nor,
very
the
and


under
shed

and


M. L. WILSON, A


Lcting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1454. Misbranding of Banol. UI. S. v. William R. Appleman (Banol Co.). Plea
of guilty. Fine, $10 and costs. (I. & F. no. 1850. Sample no. 33298-B.)
The label of this article bore unwarranted claims regarding its efficacy as
a germicide, disinfectant, and insecticide.
On January 2, 1936, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against William R. Appleman trading under the
name of the Banol Co., Kendallville, Ind., alleging shipment on or about Feb-
ruary 16, 1935, from Kendallville, Ind., to Grand Rapids, Mich., of a quantity
of Banol that was a misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
Misbranding of the article was charged under the allegations that the label
affixed to the bottle containers bore statements as follows, "Germicide, Disin-
fectant Germicide---In case of sickness or contagious diseases, spray
Banol freely and frequently all over the room, bed, etc. This will be found
beneficial to the patient by refreshing the air in the room and counteracting the
spreading of disease. Disinfectant, Deodorant-Banol is found very effective for


diginfoppting sarhar a nna


dse irpnnpal tiham. r drinin! aimn frai nlnrot anmd




r Arr


278


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. L~L F.


article
since i
The
Causti


was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
t would not be effective for the said purposes.
information also charged that the article was misbranded under the
e Poison Act, reported in notice of judgment no. 52 published under


that act.
On April 28, 1936,
costs was imposed for


a plea of guilty having been entered, a fine of $10 and
violation of both acts.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Seoretary of Agriculture.


1455. Misbranding of Tureosol 1T. U. S. v. Tureo Products, Inc. Plea of guilty,
Fine, $100. (I. & F. no. 1837. Sample no. 26466-B.)
The label of this article bore erroneous statements regarding its efficacy as a


cleanser, sterilizer, and
On January 17, 1936,
California, acting upon
district court an inform
alleging shipment by it,
January 27, 1935, from
Turcosol 17 which was


disinfectant,
the United S
a report by
action against
in violation
Los Angeles,
a fungicide


and as to its active ingredient.
states attorney for the Southern District of
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
STurco Products, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif.,
of the Insecticide Act of 1910, on or about
Calif., to Seattle, Wash., of a quantity of
within the meaning of the aforesaid act


and which was misbranded.
Misbranding of the article was charged under the allegations (a) that the
label on the tin containers bore the following statements, "Cleans and sterilizes
incubators, brooders and poultry houses For disinfecting eggs before
placing in incubator-Dip in water containing about 1 teaspoonful of Turcosol
17 for each 1% gallons of water", that the article would not sterilize incubators,
brooders, and poultry houses and would not act as a disinfectant in the dilution
specified on the label; that the aforesaid statements were false and misleading
and that they were borne on the labels so as to deceive and mislead the pur-
chaser; and (b) under the allegations that the label bore the statement, "Analy-
sis Active Ingredient (available chlorine) 17%", that available chlorine was not
the active ingredient thereof, and that said statement was false and misleading
and that it was borne on the label so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
It was further charged in the information that the article was misbranded
under the Food and Drugs and Caustic Poison Acts. See notice of judgment
no. 25803 published under the Food and Drugs Act and notice of judgment no. 51
published under the Caustic Poison Act.
On March 2, 1936, a plea of guilty having been entered, a fine of $100 was
imposed for violation of the Insecticide Act.
M. L. WILsoN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1456. Misbranding of Spratt's Germicide, Spratt's Black Antiseptie Flea Soap,
and Spratt's Flea and Insect Powder. UT. S. v. Spratt's Patent (America)
Ltd. Plea of guilty. Fine, $150. (I. & F. no. 1828. Sample nos. 1209-B,
1213-B, 21820-B.)
This case involved the following products: Spratt's Germicide, which was
labeled with deceptive and misleading representations as to its nonpoisonous
character and its germicidal efficacy, and which contained inert ingredients that
were not declared on the label as required by law; Spratt's Black Antiseptic
Flea Soap, the labeling of which contained deceptive and misleading representa-
tions as to its efficacy as an antiseptic and germicide and in treating dogs for
ticks; and Spratt's Flea and Inspect Powder, which contained less sulphur than
declared.
fTn lo-nhcr 17 1i02F tho TTnIl-ol t-1nta antnrnow fnor th1 Ta irif nf N IarW .








1481-1499]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


279


and by reason of said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and
mislead the purchaser, since the statements represented that the article was
nonpoisonous, that when used as directed it would promptly kill microbes of all
kinds, would disinfect tainted land, and would disinfect kennels; whereas the
article was not nonpoisonous and when used as directed, it would not promptly
kill microbes of all kinds, would not disinfect tainted land, and would not dis-


infect kennels. The article was
consisted partially of inert substa
hypochlorite, that do not prevent,
and the name and the percentage
present in the article were not st
label; nor in lieu thereof were th
and every ingredient of the article


alleged to be misbranded further in that it
Lces, namely, substances other than sodium
destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria),
amount of each and every ipert ingredient
sated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the
e names and the percentage amount of each
e having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties


and the total percentage of the inert ingredients stated plainly and correctly,
or at all, on the label.
Spratt's Black Antiseptic Flea Soap was alleged to be misbranded in that
the statements, "Antiseptic Flea Soap Antiseptic Germicidal *
Veterinary instruments can be absolutely sterilized with this soap", borne on the
packages, and the statements, "Spratt's Antiseptic Soap Veterinary
instruments can be absolutely sterilized with it For dog suffering
with ticks *", contained in an accompanying circular, were
false and misleading, and by reason of said statements the article was labeled
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the article when used as
directed was not an antiseptic, was not a germicide, would not sterilize veterinary
instruments, and would not act as an effective treatment for ticks on dogs.


Spratt's
statement
article coi
below the
contained
Spratt's
statement


Insect and Flea Powder
on the can label, "Powd
stained 30 percent of sulp
professed standard and
less than 30 percent of sul
Insect and Flea Powder


"Powdered


Sulphur 30%"


was
ered
hur;
quali
phur,
was


leading, and by reason of said stateme
ceive and mislead the purchaser since
in a proportion less than 30 percent.
It also was alleged in the informati(
Antiseptic Black Soap were misbrand
reported in notice of judgment no. 258
On June 26, 1936, a plea of guilty V


alleged to be misbranded in that the
Sulphur 30%", represented that the
whereas its strength and purity fell
ty under which it was sold, since it
Si. e., approximately 23.63 percent.
alleged to be misbranded in that the


borne


on the label,


false


mis-


nt the article was labeled so as to de-
the article contained powdered sulphur

)n that Spratt's Germicide and Spratt's
ed under the Food and Drugs Act, as
04 published under that act.
vas entered on behalf of the defendant


corporation, and the court imposed a fine of $150 for violations of both acts.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriolture.

1457. Adulteration and misbranding of Exserco Antiseptic Safety Deodorant
Disinfectant; and misbranding of Exserco Fly Spray, Endol Insect
Powder, Exsereo Parachloro Moth Doom, Exsereo Plant Spray, and Gold
Bond Super Parachlora Crystals. U. S. v. Exterminating Service Co.,
Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs. (I. & F. no. 1843. Sample
nos. 19574-B, 23844-B, 23899-B, 23900-B, 28691-B, 28692-B, 30136-B.)


These cases involved products the labeling of which bore false and
claims regarding their effectiveness in the control of insects and
other misrepresentations.
On December 24, 1935, the United States attorney for the Western
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
A 4 n i-t^' n -4 aj- n tn cr v4 nh On n wn n-j^w~^r 44 n n-.* a- aw- a! 4A w -^ 4- in Y7n-.-* S-n 4 .. --- Cl /^ I


misleading
fungi, and

District of
filed in the
*1v__ r j~_








280


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. L


Misbranding of the Exserco
alleged for the reason that
Cleaning: One table-spoonful t
More than 10 Per Cent *
and misleading, and by reason


so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
that the article when used as directed w
for house cleaning, that it contained not
that each of the bottles contained not less
article when used as directed would not
house cleaning, it contained water in a


Antiseptic Safety Deodorant Disinfectant was
the statements, "Disinfectant House
o three pints of water", and "Water Inert Not
6 Ounces", borne on the label, were false
of the said statements the article was labeled


since the said statements represented
would act as an effective disinfectant
more than 10 percent of water, and
than 6 ounces thereof; whereas the
act as an effective disinfectant for
proportion greater than 10 percent,


and each of the bottles did not contain 6 ounces of the article but did contain


a less amount.
Misbranding of the Exserco Fly Spray was alleged
statements, (7-ounce cans) "Spray Exserco on your
Brighten and help disinfect your rugs by its use. *
or beast", (16-ounce cans) "Exserco Insecticide
Moths Thoroughly brush the garment, then
afford positive moth protection", borne on the labels, w
and by reason of the said statements, the article was


and mislead the purchaser since the said statements repi
when used as directed would help disinfect rugs and woi
protection, without repeated applications, and was non
article when used as directed would not help disinfect
positive moth protection without repeated applications
Misbranding of the Endol Insect Powder was alleged


statements, "Insect
"Endol Sure Death
And Other Insects
cracks and corners
mattress, and into
every day for two
Spiders Use Endol


Powder", "Harmless To Human
Insect Powder Kills
Bed Bugs Blow En
of the bed. Blow the powder o
the cracks on the walls and flo


weeks to kill
Insect Powder


s *
* *
idol
n th
)ors.


for the reason that the
floors before mopping.
* Harmless to man
* Kills *
spray Exserco *
ere false and misleading
labeled so as to deceive


resented that the article
ild afford positive moth
poisonous; whereas the
rugs, would not afford
, and was poisonous.
for the reason that the
* Poisonless", and
Bed Bugs *
Insect Powder into all
e top and bottom of the
Repeat this treatment


any young ones which may hatch.
as directed for roaches" borne on


* *
the can


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 the said state-
ments represented that the article was insect powder, i. e., that it was ground
pyrethrum flowers, that it was harmless to human beings and was poisonless,
and that when used as directed it would kill bed bugs, all spiders that might be
found in houses, and all other insects; whereas the article was not insect
powder, i. e., it was not ground pyrethrum flowers, it was not harmless to human
beings, was not poisonless, and when used as directed it would not kill bed bugs,
and all spiders that might be found in houses, and all other insects.
Misbranding of the Gold Bond Super Parachlora Crystals was alleged for the
reason that the statements, "Contents When Packed Eight Ounces" and "In the
new type of vacuum cleaner it may be blown out in the form of powder which
penetrates into crevices of upholstered furniture and rugs. This new sanitary
fumigant spells death to bugs", borne on the can label, were false and misleading
and by reason thereof the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the
purchaser, in that they represented that the cans contained 8 ounces of the
article and that the said article, when used as directed, would act as an effective
insecticide against all bugs; whereas the cans did not contain 8 ounces, but did
contain a less amount, and the article when used as directed would not act as
4. ... A^ -*_ -. J.. .. 1 3 ". J- .. 1i 1 L ^.


]
)








1451-1490]


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT


281


was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that the said state-
ments and the said hanger represented that it would act as an effective insecti-
cide against moths and their larvae when used as intended, and that. it would
kil odors; whereas the article when used as intended would not act as an
effective insecticide against moths and their larvae and would not kill odors.
The information charged that the Exserco Antiseptic Deodorant Disinfectant
was also adulterated and misbranded in violation of the provisions of the Food
and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment no. 25805 published under that
act.
On April 13, 1936, a plea of guilty on all counts was entered on behalf of the
defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs for violation
of both acts.


M.L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1458. Misbranding o
Fine, $5. (I
This case involved
label of which bore
effectiveness of the a
On March 2, 1936,
setts, acting upon a


f


Gyptol.


IT. S. v. Folsom Extract Co., Inc.


. & F. no. 1862. Sample no. 36546-B.)
I an interstate shipment of an ar
deceptive and misleading repre
article as a disinfectant.
the United States attorney for t
report by the Secretary of Agricu


tidle called
sentations


Plea of guilty.


"Gyptol",
regarding


he District of Massachu-
lture, filed in the district


court an information against the Folsom Extract Co., Inc., Lynn, Mass., charging
shipment by said corporation on or about July 18, 1935, from the State of Massa-


ehusetts into the
as Gyptol, and a
Insecticide Act of
The article was
hold Disinfectant
room and kitchen
use a teaspoonful
of said statement


State of New Hampshire of a quantity of an article described
alleging that the article was misbranded in violation of the
1910.
alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "The House-
A foca nn'fl i-n a n' rl Y- 4 ,if #a 4-ha ci 'Lb_


use,
in a
the


waste pipes, etc. *
pail of water", were
article was labeled soc


LoS a V^UUa. L l auLar JoL wJUa erAor e f~
* For general cleaning purposes
false and misleading, and by reason
as to deceive and mislead the pur-


chaser, since the statements represented that the article where used as directed
would act as an effective disinfectant for use in the household, sickroom, kitchen,
waste pipes, etc., and for general cleaning purposes; whereas, in fact, the article
when used as directed would not act as an effective disinfectant for use in the
household, sickroom, kitchen, waste pipes, etc., and for general cleaning pur-
poses, and it could not be relied upon to disinfect waste pipes at any dilution.
It was also alleged in the information that the article was misbranded under
the Food and Drugs Act, as reported in notice of judgment no. 25806 published
under that act.
On August 17, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered to all counts, and the court
imposed a fine of $5 on the count charging violation of the Insecticide Act of
1910.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1459. Misbranding of Kloria. U. S. v. 290 Packages and 4 Dozen Packages of
Klorla. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. nos.
1880, 1882. Sample nos. 55655-B, 55656-B.)


These cases involved interstate shipments of an artic
labeling of which bore false and misleading claims regard
eidal, sterilizing, and insecticidal properties, and other
On February 20 and 21, 1936, the United States atto
flir<(w c. ^+n ne n Ti1! inn4 Sc i n4-i- *^-nan nn a ..J-n*& l-^n 4i,.^0 n ti n..-.adI-n'-


in onllgni


"1~Cinrin"


* .&t ^_, .A.J* ax '. aa~k. JL ..M tt tJJ a
'ding its alleged germi-
misrepresentations.
rney for the Northern
,.JS Ani#. n.. 1 A-nI- m a -Al n







282


INSECTICIDE


ACT


IN. J., I F.


The article in the lot of 4 dozen packages was alleged to be misbranded in
that statements borne on the label of the bottle, or contained in accompanying
circulars, were false and misleading, and by reason of said statements the
article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that the
statements represented that the article was nonpoisonous, was safe to have in
the home, and was more powerful against Staphcylococus8 aurens than it was
claimed to be against the typhoid germ, and that when used as directed it would
sterilize dental plates, bridgework, etc., and when used as directed would act
as an effective treatment for all varieties of mange indicated by the term "Dog
Mange (Superficial varieties)"; whereas the article was not nonpoisonous and
was not safe to have in the home, and it was not more powerful against


Staphylococcus aureus than it was claimed
germ, and the article when used as directed
bridgework, and when used as directed it
meant for all varieties of superficial mange
(Superficial varieties)."
It was also alleged in the libel that th4
Food and Drugs Act, as reported in noti


on the label to be against the typhoid
would not sterilize dental plates and
would not act as an effective treat-
Sindicated by the term "Dog Mange

e article was misbranded under the
ce of judgment no. 25807 published


under that act.
On April 29, 1936, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation
were entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agricuture.


1460. Adulteration and misbranding of Hyposol. U. S. .v. 4 Carboys of Hyposol.
Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1852.
Sample no. 35868-B.)
This case involved an interstate shipment of an article, designated as "Hypo-
sol", the active ingredient of which, available chlorine, was less and the inert
ingredients of which were greater than the respective percentages represented
on the label.
On November 21, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Utah,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of four carboys of an article described
as "Hyposol", at Logan, Utah, alleging that the article had been shipped in
interstate commerce on or about July 12, 1935, by B. K. Heimann (Braun-Kneeht-
Heimann Co.), from San Francisco, Calif., and that it was adulterated and
misbranded in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the label,
"Active Ingred. Avail. Chlorine 4% Inert Matter 95%%", were false and
misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the active
ingredient was not available chlorine, but was sodium hypochlorite, and since
the product contained less available chlorine and more inert matter than the
percentages thereof stated on the label.
On February 25, 1936, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-
tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Becretary of Agriculture.


1461. Adulteration and miasbranding of Concentrated Moth-Proofing
U. 8. v. The Resistal Products Corporation. Plea of guilty.
(I. & F. no. 1636. Sample no. 3636-A.)


Solution.
Fine, $25.


FTI L t a a A.. S. nan4nt.~tnA lane. n.,r.r~ntn 4..4aw,4Aa nA lntin 4nknl fcrw~.n 00 wta+ollIa


.h








1451-1490]


NOTICES. OF


JUDPGrENT


283


tained arsenic trioxide in a proportion much less than 17 percent and conta
arsenic as metallic in a proportion much less than 12.75 percent.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Arsenic
oxide 17% Total arsenic as metallic (all of which is in w
soluble form) 12.75%-Calculated", borne on the drum label, were false
misleading and by reason of the said statements, the article was labeled s
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained arsenic trioxide
proportion much less than 17 percent, and contained arsenic as metallic
proportion much less than 12.75 percent.


ined


Tri-
ater
and
o as
In a
In a


Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the statement "Concen-
trated Moth-Proofing Solution", borne on the drum label, was false and mis-
leading and by reason of the said statement, the article was labeled so as to
deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the said statement represented that
the article when used as directed would moth-proof furniture, rugs, carpets,
clothing, hangings, drapes, and blankets in all cases and under all conditions;
whereas the article when used as directed would not moth-proof furniture,


rugs, carpets, clothing, hangings, drapes, and blankets in all cases and
all conditions.
On May 4, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defl
company and the court imposed a fine of $25.
M. L. WILSON. Acting Secretary of Agricul


9


under


tendant


ture.


1462. Misbranding of Germ-Ax Moth Tabs and Germ-Ax Moth Crystals. U. S. v.
The Termo Chemical Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1727.
Sample nos. 65426-A, 65427-A, 65428-A.)
Unwarranted germicidal and deodorant claims were made for these articles,
and the composition of one of them, i. e., the moth crystals, was erroneously
implied in statements on its label.
On October 17, 1934, 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 it, on or about March 16, 1934, from Chicago,
Ill., to Detroit, Mich., of quantities of Germ-Ax Moth Tabs and Germ-Ax Moth
Crystals which were insecticides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of
1910.
Misbranding of the Moth Tabs was alleged in that there was borne on the
label of the tabs the statement "Germ-Ax Moth Tabs", that the said statement
purported and represented that the article possessed germicidal action, that the
article did not possess germicidal action, that the said statement was false and
misleading and that thereby the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive
and mislead the purchaser; and in that the label on the tabs bore the statements,
"To eliminate all obnoxious olors, hang the Germ-Ax in toilets, bathrooms,
musty closets, kitchens, hallways, laundry rooms, garbage cans, etc.", that the
said statements purported and represented that the article when used as directed
would eliminate all obnoxious odors in toilets, bathrooms, musty closets, kitchens,
hallways, laundry rooms, garbage cans, etc.; that the article would not effect
such an elimination; that the said statements were false and misleading and
that thereby the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead
the purchaser.
Misbranding of the Moth Crystals was alleged in that there were borne on
the label of the can the statements, "Germ-Ax Moth Crystals Pro-
duces Clean Air" and "Germ-Ax Crystals are fast replacing the old-
fashioned smelly moth balls, because the odor does not cling to garments after


V


v








284


IN SE OTI CI DX


AoT


[N. J. I. F.


1463. Misbranding of Dovola Creol and Dovola Moth Tab. U. S. v. John J. Smith
(Dovola Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs. (I. & F. no. 1742,
Sample nos. 57923-A, 59116-A, 59119-A.)
These products were misbranded, the Creol because of misrepresentations in
the labeling as to its effectiveness as a disinfectant and the Moth Tab because of
misrepresentations as to its effectiveness in the control of moths and its alleged
deodorant properties. The former contained inert ingredients which were not
declared on the label as required by law.
On February 6, 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 John J. Smith trading as the Dovola Co., Chicago,
Ill., alleging shipment by said defendants in violation of the Insecticide Act of
1910, from the State of Illinois into the State of Missouri on or about May 10,
1933, of a quantity of Devola Creol and on or about August 5, 1933, of a quantity
of Dovola Moth Tab which were misbranded.
The Creol was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements,
"The ideal antiseptic, disinfectant and deodorant. Uses Wounds: One
teaspoonful to one pint of boiled water. Sickrooms, Closets and Drains: Three
teaspoonfuls to one quart of water. Carpets, Rugs, Etc.: 2 teaspoonfuls to one
quart of water. Hand Solution: One teaspoonful to one pint of water", borne
on the bottle label, 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


they represented that the
act as an ideal disinfectant
the label, and that it would
closets; whereas it would
which it was recommended


article when used in the dilutions
t for the places for which it was r,
disinfect drains, wounds, the hands,
not act as an ideal disinfectant for
on the label and would not disinfect


specified would
recommended on
sick rooms, and
the places for
drains, wounds,


the hands, sick rooms, and closets when used in the dilutions specified. Mis-
branding of Creol was alleged for the further reason that the article consisted
partially of inert substances, namely, water and glycerin, 1. e., substances that
do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi, and the name and the per-
centage amount of each of the said inert substances or ingredients present
therein were not stated plainly and correctly on the bottle label, nor in lieu
thereof were the name and percentage amount of each and every substance or
ingredient having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and the total percentage
of the inert ingredients present stated plainly and correctly on the label.
The Moth Tab was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements,
"Dovola Moth Tab Effective Moth Control Controls Moth
Ravage. Use when packing away woolens, Furs, Clothing, etc. in Trunks,
Chests, Bags, Closets, Boxes, etc. By slow evaporation the confined fumes of
Dovola Moth Tabs will kill all stages of Moth Life", and "To eliminate all
obnoxious odors, place Dovola in Toilets, Bathrooms, Musty Closets, Kitchen,
Hallways, Laundry Rooms, Garbage Cans, etc.", borne on the labels, were false
and misleading and by reason of the said statements, the article was labeled
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they represented that the
article when used as directed would kill moths under all conditions and would


eliminate obnoxious odors in toilets,
ways, laundry rooms, garbage cans,
directed would not kill moths under
obnoxious odors in toilets, bathrooms,
rooms, garbage cans, etc.
The Creol was also charged to be m
nnnnYd-r/f^A^ n,44h-T n^-l-t. vrinjl n+4nnSne n4-P +hT-nl


bathrooms, musty closets, kitchen, hall-
etc.; whereas the article when used as
all conditions and would not eliminate
musty closets, kitchen, hallways, laundry


misbranded under the Food and Drugs Act
n ni 4 n n n4-4 n!fi rrf\^ n P 4. A t5ii n, a~n 4- ^n^ a OfSiV^








1451-1490]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


285


about July 3, 194, from the State of Ohio into the State of Missouri, of a quan-
tity of Maison's Cresol Solution which was an adulterated and misbranded
fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in tlat the statement "Maison's
Cresol Solution", borne on the bottle label, represented that its standard and
quality were such that the tar acids in the product consisted chiefly of cresols;
whereas the strength and purity of the article fell below the professed standard
and quality under which it was sold, since it did not consist chiefly of cresols,
but the tar acids in the product consisted chiefly of phenols other than cresols.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement "Maison's Cresol
Solution", borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading, and for the
further reason that the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the
purchaser in that the said statement represented that the tar acids in the
product consisted chiefly of cresols; whereas the tar acids in the product con-
sisted chiefly of phenols other than cresols. Misbranding was alleged for the
further reason that the article consisted partially of inert substances, i. e.,
water and glycerin, which substances do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
fungi, and the names and percentage amounts of the said inert substances


present in the article were not stated plainly and correctly


on the bottle label


nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount of each substance or
ingredient of the article having fungicidal properties and the total percentage
of the inert substances or ingredients so present therein stated plainly and
correctly on the label. The information also charged that the product was
misbranded under the Food and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment
no. 25390 published under that act.
On March 27, 1936, a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf of the
defendant company, and the court imposed a fined of $50 for violation of both
acts.


M.L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1465. Misbranding of Santol. U. S. v. Ira M. Lippel (Industrial Laboratories).
Plea of guilty. Fine, $10 and costs. (I. & F. no. 1823. Sample no.
35594-B.)
This article contained an inert ingredient, namely, water, and its label was
without the statement that is required on the label of a fungicide containing
an inert ingredient.
On November 4, 1935, 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 Ira M. Lippel trading under the name of Indus-
trial Laboratories, Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by him on or about Feb-
ruary 1, 1935, from Baltimore, Md., to Williamson, W. Va., of a quantity of
Santol which was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide
Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of an
inert substance, namely, water and the name and percentage amount of such
substance were not stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the label affixed
to the drums containing the article; nor in lieu thereof were the names and
percentage amounts of each and every ingredient of the article having fungi-
cidal properties and the total percentage of the inert ingredients present therein
stated plainly and correctly on the said label.
On February 13, 1936, a plea of guilty having been entered, a fine of $10 and
costs was imposed.


MM ~ ~ rw-r nnw. S n.~ a t.T naa AA 4 S a~.2 ,.a a a ~%








286


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., L F.


E-Z which was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the
ingredients Sodium .Hypochlorite 5% Inert ingredients
bottle label, represented that it contained an active ingr4
chlorite, in the proportion of not less than 5 percent, am
gredients in the proportion of not more than 95 percent;
and purity fell below the professed standard and quality
sold, since it contained less than 5 percent of sodium h3


than 95 percent
Misbranding w
(bottle) "Active
"Sterilizer *
centrated Sodiur


within the meaning
statements, "Active
95%", borne on the
edient, sodium hypo-
d contained inert ii-
whereas its strength
under which it was
pochlorite and more


of inert ingredients.
as alleged for the reason that the statements in the labeling,
ingredients Sodium Hypochlorite 5% Inert ingredients 95%",
the use of E-Z as a sterilizer E-Z is a con-
n Hypochlorite solution its harmlessness *


well-known to physicians and chemists'
were false and misleading and by reason
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the
the article contained the percentages of
and was a sterilizer, was a concentrated
nonpoisonous; whereas it contained less
the inert ingredients than declared, it w
treated sodium hypochlorite solution, and
On October 14, 1935, a plea of guilty w
company and the court imposed a fine of


', and (carton) "Sterilizer *",
of the said statements, the article was
purchaser, since they represented that
active and inert ingredients declared
sodium hypochlorite solution, and was
of the active ingredient and more of
as not a sterilizer, was not a concen-
was not nonpoisonous.
ras entered on behalf of the defendant
$10.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1467. Misbranding of Termox Disinfeetant. U. S. v. Termo Chemical Co. Plea
of guilty. Fine, $10. (I. & F. no. 1830. Sample no. 35623-B.)
This case involved a product the labeling of which contained misrepresenta-
tions regarding its phenol coefficient, and its effectiveness as a disinfectant and
insecticide.
On October 2, 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 February 13, 1935,
from the State of Illinois into the State of Ohio of a quantity of Termox Dis-
infectant 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 on the bottle label, "Phenol Coefficient 2.0 Disinfectant *
general cleaning: Use 3 teaspoonfuls to each pail of water Sick
Room-one tablespoonful to each gallon of water", and "Uses and Directions
for roaches, bed bugs, ants, fleas, etc.-One tablespoonful to a pint of water.
Small Animal Pets-One teaspoonful to a gallon of water", were false and mis-
leading and by reason of said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive
and mislead the purchaser since the article had a phenol coefficient of less than
2.0; when used at the dilutions specified on the label it would not act as a dis-
infectant for general cleaning and for use in the sickroom; and when used as
directed would not act as an effective insecticide against roaches, bed bugs, ants,
fleas, etc.
On February 14, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $10.







1451-1490]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


287


The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, namely,
"Available Chlorine Seven Percent inerts ninety three per cent."
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Available Chlo-
rine Seven Percent inerts ninety three per cent", borne on the label, were false
and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser and for the
further reason that it consisted partially of inert substances, i. e., substances
other than sodium hypochlorite and the name and percentage amount of each
inert substance were not stated plainly and correctly on the label, nor did the
label bear a statement of the name and percentage amount of the ingredient
having fungicidal properties and total percentage of inert ingredients.
On December 11, 1935, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-
tion was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
M. L. WmsoN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1469. Misbranding and alleged adulteration of arsenical copper lime dust. U. S.
v. 19 Cases of Arsenical Copper Lime Dust. Default decree of destruc-
tion. (I. & F. no. 1844. Sample no. 35149-B.)
This product contained a smaller proportion of the active ingredients and a
larger portion of the inert ingredients than declared on the label.
On or about November 6, 1935, the United States attorney for the Southern
District of Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 19 cases of
arsenical copper lime dust at Indianapolis, Ind., alleging that the article had
been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 4, 1935, by the Tennessee
Corporation, from Lockland, Ohio, and charging adulteration and misbranding
in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and) purity fell
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Active ingredi-
ents tricalcium arsenate not less than 15 per cent, monohydrated copper sul-
phate not less than 20 per cent, inert ingredients not more than 65 per cent",
borne on the label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead
the purchaser since the product contained less monohydrated copper sulphate,
less tricalcium arsenate, and more inert ingredients than declared on the label.
On January 15, 1936, no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered
finding the product misbranded and ordering that it be condemned and
destroyed.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agrictu2ture.


1470. Adulteration and misbranding of Holeomb's Pine-Ola and misbranding of
Fly Repeller. U. S. v. J. I. Holeomb Manufacturing Co. Plea of guilty.
Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1846. Sample nos. 35138-B, 35139-B.)
The Pine-Ola involved in this action fell below its professed standard or
quality; mineral oil had been substituted in part for it; and its label bore
erroneous statements regarding its ingredients, its phenol coefficient, and its
efficacy as a disinfectant. The labeling of the Fly Repeller contained unwar-
ranted claims regarding its efficacy as an insecticide.
On February 24, 1936, the United States attorney for the Southern District
of Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the J. I. Holeomb Manufacturing Co., a
corporation, Indianapolis, Ind., alleging shipment by it, on or about March 16,
1935, from Indianapolis, Ind., to Slade, Ky., of quantities of Holcomb's Pine-Ola
stnd lrlu fl~rTonollar wxhin~h wiCarno a einru






288


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[1. J.,?. F.


an inert ingredient, namely, mineral oil, in addition to water; that the said
statements were false and misleading, and that thereby the article was labeled
and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser; in that the label
affixed to each of the cans bore the statements, "Pine-Ola (Phenol
Coeff F D A Method 3.0)"; that the article was not a pine-oil preparation, but
did consist largely of mineral oil; that the article possessed a phenol coefficient
of less than 3.0, to wit, 2.0, when tested by the F. D. A. method; in that the label
affixed to each of the cans bore the statements, to wit, "Directions. Disinfectant
Three tablespoons (2 oz) per gallon of water"; that the article would not act
as a disinfectant when used at the dilution of 3 tablespoonfuls to a gallon of
water; that the said statements were false and misleading, and that thereby
the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
Misbranding of the Fly Repeller was charged under the allegations that the
label affixed to the drum container bore the statements, "Fly Repeller Spray
the animals in the morning before they are turned out to pasture and the Fly
Repeller will remain on them the whole day. Flies and other insects
will not bother them as before. Do not rub Fly Repeller into the skin of the
animal. Spray Fly Repeller liberally around the barns and stalls"; that the
said statements represented that the article would act as an effective repellent
against all varieties of flies that attack or annoy animals, that it would have
repellent action against all varieties of flies or other insects throughout the
day, and that it would keep flies out of barns and stalls; that the said state-
ments were false and misleading, and that thereby the article was labeled and
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser since it would not act as an
effective repellent against all varieties of flies that attack or annoy animals,
it would not have repellent action against all varieties of flies and insects
throughout the day and would not keep flies out of barns and stalls.
On March 7, 1936, a plea of guilty having been entered, a fine of $25 was
imposed.


M.L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1471. Misbranding o
Remmers-Gr
Sample no. 28
This article was
water, and its label
On December 6, 1
of Ohio, acting uponr
trict court an inform


f Grandpa's
aham Co.
i985-B.)


Wonder Liquid Pine Tar Spray.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $20. (I.


UI. S. v. Beaver-


& F.


an insecticide and contained an inert ingredient,
failed to declare the inert ingredient as required
985, the United States attorney for the Southern
i a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
nation against the Beaver-Remmers-Graham Co., a


no. 1847.

namely,
by law.
District
the dis-
corpora-


tion, Dayton, Ohio, alleging shipment by it, on or about June 20, 1934, from the
State of Ohio into the State of Massachusetts of a quantity of Grandpa's Wonder
Liquid Pine Tar Spray which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of an
inert substance, namely, water, and the name and percentage amount of the
said inert ingredient present in the article were not stated plainly and correctly,
or at all, on the label affixed to each of the cans containing the article; nor in
lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount of each and every ingredient
of the article having insecticidal properties and the total percentage of the inert
ingredients present therein stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On December 11, 1935, a plea of guilty having been entered, a fine of $20 was
imposed.
-lywj u S* a S a ^-.







1451-1490]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


289


Moth Deodorizing Preventative which were misbranded insecticides within the
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements,
(Peripad Vaporizing Crystals) "A positive Moth Repellent Direc-
tions Sprinkle under carpets, rugs, in overstuffed furniture, clothes closets,
bureau drawers, trunks, etc. 8 oz. Average Net Weight", (De-O-Dit)
"'Moth Repellent Directions For Use Punch holes in cellophane under
cover and place in bureau drawers, clothes closets, handkerchief boxes, or any
place where it is convenient or necessary. Effective for 4 to 6 months *
Air conditioner"; (Peripad Moth Deodorizing Preventative) "Preventative
* For Use as a Moth Repellent *. Hang Peripads in closets,
kitchens, bathrooms, etc., or place under cushions of overstuffed furniture,
etc.", borne on the labels, were false and misleading and by reason thereof the
articles were labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they
represented that the Peripad Vaporizing Crystals would act as a moth repellent
and as a moth control when used as directed and that each of the cans con-


trained 8 ounces net of the article; that
repellent and as a moth control and would
as directed; and that the Peripad Moth
as a moth preventative or repellent and
reacted; whereas the articles would not a
controls when used as directed, the cans
Crystals did not each contain 8 ounces o:
amount and the De-O-Dit when used as


conditioner.
On February 8, 1936,
imposed a fine of $25.


the defendant entered a


the De-O-Dit would act
act as an air conditioner
Deodorizing Preventative
as a moth control when
Lct as moth repellents an
Containing the Peripad
f the article, but did con
directed would not act


plea


of guilty and


as a moth
when used
would act
used as di-
Ld as moth
Vaporizing
tain a less
as an air


the court


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1473. Misbranding of Chemo. U. S. v. The Chemo Co. Plea of guilty. Fine,
$75. (I. & F. no. 1849. Sample no. 30532-B.)
The label of this article bore unwarranted statements regarding its efficacy
as a disinfectant and insecticide.
On January 6, 1936, the United States attorney for the Western District of
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Chemo Co., a corporation, Buffalo,
N. Y., alleging shipment by it, on or about April 4, 1935, from Buffalo, N. Y.,
to Jersey City, N. J., of a quantity of Chemo which was a misbranded insec-
ticide and fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
Misbranding of the article was charged (a) under the allegations that the
label affixed to the can container bore the statements, "The Great *
Germ Destroyer Is also an excellent Disinfectant"; that
the article would not act as a germ destroyer and disinfectant; that the said
statements were false and misleading and that thereby the article was labeled
and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser; (b) under the alle-
gations that the label affixed to the can container bore the statement, "Destroys
the eggs of all insects"; that the article would not act as an effective insecticide
against the eggs of all insects; that the said statement was false and misleading,
and that thereby the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and
mislead the purchaser.
On March 16, 1936, a plea of guilty having been entered, a fine of $75 was
imposed.


M.L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


^







290


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N J., L


The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Eke"
"Used For Moths", and "Unwrap and Hang Up", borne on the label, were false
and misleading and by reason of said statements, the article was labeled and
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the statements repre-
sented that the article when used as directed would act as a control for moths;
whereas, in fact, the article when used as directed would not act as a control
for moths.
On February 4, 1936, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, and the court
imposed a fine of $10.


M.L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


AgriouJtsre.


1475. Adulteration and misbranding of Blue Cross Crescent
U. S. v. Purity Chemical Products Co. Fine, $50.
Sample no. 8704-B.)
The label of this article bore erroneous statements regarding
ents and solubility and incorrectly declared the article nonp
On January 13, 1936, the United States attorney for the N
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricu
district court an information against the Purity Chemical Pr


portion, Santa Rosa, Calif., alleging shipment by it,
1935, from Santa Rosa, Calif., to Panaca, Nev., of
Crescent Soluble Pine Oil which was an adulterated
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
Adulteration of the article was charged (a) under


Soluble Pine Oil.
(I. & F. no. 1853.
g its inert ingredi-
oisonous.
northern District of
ilture, filed in the
oducts Co., a cor-


on or about February 28,
a quantity of Blue Cross
and misbranded fungicide

the allegations that there


was borne on the label affixed to the drum container the statement,
"Inert 10%", that the article contained inert ingredients in a pro-
portion greater than 10 percent, that the strength and purity of the article
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold; (b)
under the allegations that there were borne on the label affixed to the drum
container of the article the statements, "* Pine Oil Germi-
cide Inert Water 10%"; that the said statements purported and repre-
sented that the article consisted of a mixture of pine oil and 10 percent of water;
that another substance, mineral oil, had been substituted in part for the article,
i. e., for pine oil.
Misbranding of the article was charged under the allegations that the state-
ments on the drum label, "Inert water, 10%", "Nonpoisonous", and "Soluble
Pine Oil", were false and misleading and that thereby the article was labeled
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained inert ingredients
in a proportion much greater than 10 percent, it contained another inert ingredi-
ent, mineral oil, in addition to water, said article was poisonous, and it was
not soluble pine oil; but was a mixture of pine oil, mineral oil, soap, and water,
and was not soluble in water.
On February 10, 1936, a plea of guilty having been entered, a fine of $50 was
imposed.


M.L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1476. Adulteration and misbranding of Chloroeide, U. S. v. R. J. Strasenburgh
Co. Plea of guilty. Fine of $100 on count 2; fine of $25 on count 1
suspended. (I. & F. no. 1854. Sample no. 23697-B.)
The label of this article bore erroneous statements regarding its inert in-
gredients, and the article fell below the professed standard under which it was
sold. Unwarranted claims of efficacy as a sterilizer and germicide were made
for the article.
a"L- A n a .JA ,.. .- a fta A I ... J ^ t-. -. -L T V A


I







1451-1490]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


291


gredients-Water 63%", that the article contained water in a proportion greater
than 63 percent and an inert ingredient in addition to water, to wit, glycerin,
that the said statement was false and misleading and that thereby the article
was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser; (b) under
the allegations that there were borne on the label affixed to the bottle container
the following statements, "A non-toxic germicide and detergent for use in ster-
ilizing gloves and instruments and in preparing operative surfaces and 'scrub-


ing in'
minutes
spores.
mnents w
branded
used as


prior to operative work. A 155
against the organisms B. Typhosis and
Stronger solutions are effective in shorter
ere false and misleading and that thereby
so as to deceive and mislead the purchase
directed would not be effective in sterilizing


preparing operative surfaces, nor for
would not act as a germicide in
Staphylococcn8 awreus and spores.
On March 10, 1966, a plea of guilty
were imposed on counts 1 and 2, resp
1 was suspended.
M.L


, solution is germicidal in 5
staphylococcus aureus and
periods", that the said state-
the article was labeled and
r since the said article when
ig gloves and instruments, in


"scrubbing in" prior to operative work, and
5 minutes against Bacillus typhosis and
r having been entered, fines of $25 and $100
actively. Payment of the $25 fine on count

WrLSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1477. Misbranding of Be Square Sweeping Compound. U. S. v. Schwarz Paper
Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $20 and costs. (I. & F. no. 1855. Sample no.
33120-B.)
The label of this article bore unwarranted statements regarding its efficacy
as a disinfectant and insecticide and was without the required declaration con-
cerning the inert ingredients of the article.
On January 18, 19386, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
an information against the Schwarz Paper Co., a corporation, Lincoln, Nebr.,
alleging shipment by it, on or about April 1, 1935, from Lincoln, Nebr., to
Council Bluffs, Iowa, of a quantity of Be Square Sweeping Compound which
was an insecticide and fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
of 1910.
Misbranding of the article was charged (a) under the allegations that there
were borne on the label affixed to the drum container the statements, "Contains
chemical ingredients recognized by authorities as thoroughly disinfecting *
disinfects the sweepings *", that the article when used as directed would
not act as a disinfectant and would not disinfect sweepings, that the said state-
ments were false and misleading and that thereby the article was labeled and


branded so as to deceive and mislead t
that there was borne on the label affix
the statement, "Saves the merchandise
eliminates moths and other vermin",
would not eliminate moths and would
the said statement was false and misl
labeled and branded so as to deceive ai
allegations that the article consisted c
the name and percentage amount of
gredient in the article were not stated
On March 27, 1936, a plea of guilty
costs was imposed.


he purchaser; (b) under the allegations
red to the drum container of the article
from destruction by dust and
that the article when used as directed
not eliminate all other vermin, and that
leading and that thereby the article was
nd mislead the purchaser; (c) under the
completely of inert substances, and that
each and every inert substance or in-
plainly and correctly on the label.
having been entered, a fine of $20 and


t







292


INSECTICIDE


ACT


IN. J., L ,


The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,


"In the new


type of vacuum cleaner it may be blown out in the form of powder which pene-
trates into crevices of upholstered furniture and rugs. This'new sanitary fumi-
gant spells death to moths", borne on the labels affixed to the cans containing
the article, were false and misleading, and that thereby the article was labeled
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that they represented that the
article when used in vacuum cleaners as directed would act as an effective
control against moths in upholstered furniture and rugs; whereas it would not
act as an effective control against moths in upholstered furniture and rugs
when used in vacuum cleaners as directed.


On April 9, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of
company, and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of


the defendant

Agriculture.


1479. Adulteration and misbranding of 0C. D. ide Fifteen. U. S. v. 26 Packages
and 11 Packages of C. D. Cide Fifteen. Default decree of condemnation
and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1857. Sample no. 40627-B.)
This case involved a product sold as chlorine disinfectant. Examination
showed that it contained no available chlorine and that the labeling bore un-
warranted claims regarding its alleged germ-killing and disease-preventing
properties.
On December 11, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 37 packages of C. D. Gide Fifteen
at Portland, Oreg., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-
merce on or about April 10, 1935, by the Carpenter Certified Laboratories, from
Van Nuys, Calif., and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of
the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and properties
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Chloride (chlo-
rine) Disinfectant-kills all germs Stop spread of infectious diseases
through the drinking water available Chloride (Chlorine) over fifteen
per cent sodium chloride and other inert ingredients eighty-five per cent", borne
on the package label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mis-
lead purchasers, since it was not a chlorine disinfectant, would not kill germs,
would not stop the spread 6f infectious disease through drinking water, and
contained no available chlorine; but did consist completely of inert ingredients.
On January 28, 1936, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agrnioteure.
1480. Adulteration and misbranding of Hammond's Grape and Rose Dust. TJ. S.
v. Hammond Paint & Chemical Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $200 on each
of 2 counts; fine on second count suspended. (I. & F. no. 1858. Sample
no. 22047-B.)


This product contained a smaller proportion of si
tion of inert material than declared on the label.


lphur and a larger propor-


On February 7, 1936, 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 Hammond Paint & Chemical Co., a
corporation, Beacon, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company on or about
March 25, 1935, from the State of New York into the State of New Jersey of a
n* .- at n- 444. S ^^v fl n~r a w-h- A Cl ..1 n~ nn/ at A* fl an eam *. e. 4.. ut-n 'I' n n n^l r a- a n a^ A.. 1' *n n 4nAv-f' n*/t/ nr Ai *f I*^ a








1451-1490]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


293


On February 13, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $200 on each of the two counts but
suspended payment on the second count.
M. L. WILsoN, Acting Secretary of Agriowuiture.


1481. Adulteration and misbranding of 10-N Nicotine
The Miller Products Co. Plea of guilty. Fine,
Sample no. 31387-B.)
This case involved a product which was found to conta
of sulphur and of nicotine sulphate and a larger proport
than declared.
On January 24, 1936, the United States attorney for
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fil
an information against the Miller Products Co., a co


Dust Special. U. S. v.
$50. (I. & F. no. 1859.
in a smaller proportion
ion of inert ingredients

the District of Oregon,
ed in the district court
rporation of Portland,


Oreg., alleging shipment by said company on or about April 13, 1935, from the
State of Oregon into the State of Washington of a quantity of 10-N Nicotine
Dust Special which was an adulterated insecticide other than paris green and
lead arsenic within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Active
ingredients, sulphur 30% Inert Ingredients, 66.4%", borne on the tag attached
to the drums containing the article, represented that it contained sulphur in
the proportion of not less than 30 percent, and contained inert ingredients in
the proportion of not more than 66.4 percent; wherois the strength and purity
of the article fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was
sold, since it contained less than 30 percent of sulphur and more than 66.4
percent of the inert ingredients.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Active ingredi-
ents, sulphur 30% Inert ingredients 66.4%" and "Nicotine alkaloid 3.6% (Equiva-
lent to 9% nicotine sulphate)", borne on the tags, 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 contained
not less than 30 percent of sulphur and not more than 66.4 percent of the inert
ingredients, and that 3.6 percent nicotine alkaloid is equivalent to 9 percent
nicotine sulphate; whereas the article contained much less than 30 percent of
sulphur, much more than 66.4 percent of inert ingredients, and 3.6 percent of
nicotine alkaloid is equivalent to much less than 9 percent of nicotine sulphate.
On March 4, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $50.
M. L. Wnson, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1482. Adulteration and misbranding of O.K.'d Farm Louse Powder. U. S. v. 88
Cans and 26 Cans of O.K.'d Farm Louse Powder. Default decree of
destruction. (I. & F. no. 1860. Sample nos. 41021-B, 41022-B.)
This product contained a smaller percentage of naphthalene, one of the active
ingredients, and a larger percentage of the total inert ingredient than declared
on the label.
On December 14, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Minne-
sota, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of eighty-six 5-pound cans and
twenty-six 2-pound cans of O. K.'d Farm Louse Powder at Minneapolis, Minn.,
alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce in various
shipments, on or about February 21, March 4, May 29, and June 6, 1935, by the
VT-l+orinarol Prnnan~a (.n From UPnrl Til anTi nhoroincr adiiiilnratnin nTir mTa..








294


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J..I. F.


1483. Adulteration and misbranding of Mulsold-Sulfur.
Williams Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $500.
Sample nos. 35411-B, 36467-B, 37249-B.)


Sherwin-
no. 1863.


This case was based on interstate shipments of a product which was short-


weight, one shipment of which contained a smaller percentage of s
larger percentage of inert ingredients than declared on the label.
On April 24, 1936, the United States attorney for the District of
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the a
an information against Sherwin-Williams Co., Inc., Bound Brook,
ing shipment by said company in violation of the Insecticide Act (
about April 11, May 14, and June 10, 1935, from the State of Nev
the States of Ohio, Massachusetts, and Florida of quantities of M
which was misbranded, and a part of which also was adulterated.
The product in the shipment of June 10 into Massachusetts was
adulterated in that the statement, "Sulfur-not less than 95% I


ents-Not more than 5%"


Sborne on


article, represented that its standard at
not less than 95 percent of sulphur and n
ents; whereas it contained less than 9i
percent of inert ingredients.
Misbranding was alleged with respect
for the reason that the statements, "Su


ulphur and a

New Jersey,
district court
N. J., alleg-
)f 1910 on or
v Jersey into
ulsoid-Sulfur
.
alleged to be
nert ingredi-


label affixed to the bag containing the
nd quality were such that it contained
ot more than 5 percent of inert ingredi-
5 percent of sulphur and more than 5

to the said shipment into Massachusetts
lfur not less than 95% Inert ingredi-


ents-not more than 5%", borne on the label, were false and misleading and
that thereby the article wds labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
since it contained less than 95 percent of sulphur and more than 5 percent of
inert ingredients.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to all shipments for the reason that
the statements, "Four pounds net weight" and "Six pounds net weight", borne
on the labels of the respective-sized packages, were false and misleading and
by reason of the said statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive and
mislead the purchaser since the packages did not contain 4 pounds and 6
pounds net weight, respectively, but did contain lesser amounts.
On May 4, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $500.
M. L. WILSON, Actina Secretari of Auriculture.


1484. Adulteration and misbranding of H & D Health Spray. U. S. v. James A.
Haines (Haines Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs.
(I. & F. no. 1865. Sample no. 23283-B.)
This case involved a product, described as "H & D Health Spray", the label
of which bore deceptive and misleading representations regarding its disin-
fecting, germicidal, deodorizing, and insecticidal properties, and which con-
tained formaldehyde, antiseptic vegetable oils, and potassium and sodium in
proportions less than the percentages thereof stated on the label, and an inert
ingredient, water, the presence of which was not disclosed on the label as
required by law.
On February 12, 1936, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
trict court an information against James A. Haines trading as the Haines
Products Co., Carey, Ohio, charging shipment by gaid defendant on or about


June 8, 1935,
of an insect
tion of the


from the State of Ohio into the State of Wisconsin of a quu
cide and fungicide that was adulterated and misbranded in
Insecticide Act of 1910. The article, contained in bottles


entity
viola-
, was




-


1451-1490]


1~OflOES


OF JUDGMENT


295


trained formaldehyde in a proportion of not less than 6.25 percent, antiseptic
vegetable oils in a proportion not less than 4 percent, and potassium and sodium
in a proportion not less than 2.25 percent; whereas the strength and purity of
the article fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was
sold in that it contained formaldehyde in a proportion less than 6.25 percent,
antiseptic vegetable oils in a proportion less than 4 percent, and potassium
a nd sodium in a proportion less than 2.25 percent.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that statements borne on the
label were false and misleading and by reason of such statements, the article
was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that such statements
represented that the article contained formaldehyde in a proportion not less
than 6.25 percent, antiseptic vegetable oils in a proportion not less than 4
percent, and potassium and sodium in a proportion not less than 2.25 percent,
and that the article would act as a health spray, that it would banish all odors,
that it would act as"an effective disinfectant and germ destroyer when used as
a spray in the air, that it would purify the air, that it would act as an effective


germicide in preventing the spread of colds, influenza, and
tagious diseases, that it would act as an antiseptic and that
moths and would drive out all insects; whereas, in fact, the
formaldehyde in a proportion less than 6.25 percent, antiseptic
a proportion less than 4 percent, and potassium and sodium
less than 2.25 percent, and the article would not act as a he
sprayed in the air, would not banish all odors, would not ac
disinfectant and germ destroyer when used as a spray in th


purify the air, would not act as an eff
of colds, influenza, and many other c
antiseptic, and would not destroy mot
The article was alleged to be misbram
and fungicide, it consisted partially of
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insi
centage amount of said inert ingredie]


on the label, nor in lieu
and every ingredient of
and the total percent
plainly and correctly on
On April 21, 1966, the
a fine of $50 and costs.


many other con-
it would destroy
article contained
vegetable oils in
in a proportion
alth spray when
t as an effective
e air, would not


active germicide in preventing the spread
contagious diseases, would not act as an
hs and would not drive out all insects.
ded further in that, being an insecticide
an inert substance, water, that does not
ects or fungi, and the name and the per-
nt were not stated plainly and correctly


thereof were the name and perce
the article having insecticidal or
ge of inert ingredients present
the label.
defendant entered a plea of guilty


ntage amount of each
fungicidal properties,
in the article, stated


and the court imposed


WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1485. Misbranding of Kleenwell Swat Fly and Insect Spray.
Sanitary Products Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.


U. S. v. The Chicago
(I. & F. no. 1866.


Sample no. 33476-B.)
S
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading claims that it was 100
percent active and would destroy flies when used as directed.
On February 14, 1936, 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 Chicago Sanitary Products Co., a
corporation of Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment by said company on or about


December 26, 1934, from the State of Illinois into the State of Iowa of a quantity
of Kleenwell Swat Fly and Insect Spray which was a misbranded insecticide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "100% Ac-
ive" and "To destroy flies Close doors and windows. Spray Swat




w..


296


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J. I.,la


1486. Misbranding of Antzix. U. S. v. Bonide Chemical Co., Inc. Plea of guilty,
Fine, $50. (I. & F. no. 1867. Sample no. 36287-B.)
This case involved an interstate shipment of an insecticide, described as
"Bonide Antzix", the label of which bore deceptive and misleading representa-
tions that it would be effective against ants and other insects and that it was
nonpoisonous, and did not bear a statement of the inert ingredients, nor in
lieu thereof, the active ingredients of the article.
On April 7, 1936, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the


district court an information
charging shipment by said c
State of New York into the
cide that was misbranded i
article, contained in tubes, v
station of ant] Bonide Chem. (
The article was alleged to
in an accompanying circular
by reason of said statements,


against the Bonide Chemical Co., Inc., Utica, N. Y.,


corporation
State of Ma
n violation
as labeled
Do., Inc., Ut
be misbran


on or about March 19, 1935, from the
ssachusetts of a quantity of an insecti-
of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The
in part: "Antzix Kills Ants representn
ica, N. Y."
led in that statements on the label and


and display card were false and misleading and
the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead


the purchaser, since the statements represented that the article when used as
directed would act as an effective insecticide against all species of ants and


would be effective against some species of ants in from 3 to 5 hours, and
the article would act as an effective insecticide against cutworms, sow
slugs, etc., and would be effective against all other insects and pests, and
the article was nonpoisonous; whereas the article when used as directed v
not act as an effective insecticide against all species of ants and would n
effective against any species of ants in 3 to 5 hours, would not act as an effe


insecticide against cutworms, sow bugs, slugs, etc., and
against all other insects and all other pests, and was
was alleged to be misbranded further in that, being an


that
bugs,
that
rould
ot be
active


would not be effective
poisonous. The article
insecticide, it consisted


partially of inert substances that do not prevent, destroy, or repel insects, and
the name and the percentage amount of each and every inert ingredient were
not stated plainly and correctly on the label of the tubes containing the article,
nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount of each and every
ingredient of the article having insecticidal properties, and the total percentage
of the inert ingredients, stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On April 7, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
corporation, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1487. Misbranding of Moth Proofing Crystals. U. S. v. Tenno Chemical Co.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1871. Sample no. 47135-B.)
This product would not afford the moth protection claimed on the labels and
contained an undeclared inert ingredient.
On April 2, 1936, 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 March 30, 1965,
from the State of Illinois into the State of Missouri, of a quantity of Moth
Proofing Crystals which were a misbranded insecticide within the meaning 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 Clotheg
t -l .i .T r ^ _, T _. *r~ A.- ___ ____ ^ ^ l_ f




rA~ ~


1451-1490]


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT


297


centage amount of the inert ingredient were not stated plainly and correctly
on the label of each of the envelopes containing the article; nor in lieu thereof
were the name and the percentage amount of each substance and ingredient of
the article having insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert
substance contained therein, stated plainly and correctly on the said envelopes.
On May 19, 1986, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
company and the court imposed a fine of $25.
M. L. WuLSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1488. Misbranding of Germeo Roach and Waterbug Powder. U. S. v. Sadie B.
Jubelirer (German Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs.
(I. & F. no. 1873. Sample no. 28649-B.)
The labeling of this product bore unwarranted claims regarding its alleged
effectiveness in the control of certain insects, other misrepresentations, and it


failed to declare the inert ingredients present in the article.
On March 9, 1936, the United States attorney for the Western
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
district court an information against Sadie B. Jubelirer trading as
Chemical Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendant


January 28, 19
quantity of G0
insecticide witi
The article
Use-Because :
not abate for
out *
tions *
gregate. *
other parasites
ingredients in


35'
~,r1n


from the State
co Roach and


of Pennsylvania into the State
Waterbug Powder which was


hin the meaning of the Insecticid
was alleged to be misbranded ini
it is not a poison", "Lasting Resu
a year and it therefore kills
Germco Powder is lasting",
For Ants-Shoot the Powder
It kills the young when they
are destroyed by mere contact
the natural oils of the skin and


District of
filed in the
the German
on or about
>f Ohio of a
misbranded


Act of 1910.
i that the statements, "Safe to
its-Because killing power does
Sthe young when they hatch
and "Germco Direc-
into the air where Ants con-
hatch out ticks and
with the solution of the active
hair. Germco Roach


and Waterbug Powder is 100% Active Ingredients, contains no inert ingredi-
ents", borne on the can label, were 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 they represented that the article was not a poison, that when
used as directed it would act as an effective insecticide for 1 year against the
insects named on the label, would kill young ants and would act as an effective
insecticide against ticks and all other parasites that infest animals, and that
it consisted of 100 percent active ingredients; whereas the article was a poison,


it would not act as an effective insecticide for 1
on the label, it would not kill young ants and
insecticide against ticks and all other parasites
as directed, and it did not consist of 100 percent
sist in part of inert ingredients.
Misbranding was alleged for the further rea


year against the insects named
would not act as an effective
that infest animals, when used
active ingredients but did con-


[son


that the


article


consisted


partially of inert substances and ingredients, namely, substances other than
sodium fluoride, borax, boric acid, and pyrethrum flower powder, and the name
and percentage of each of the inert ingredients present therein were not stated
plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the can containing the article; nor
in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount of each and every sub-
stance and ingredient of the article having insecticidal properties and the total
percentage of the inert substances present therein stated plainly and correctly
on the can label.
On May 8, 1936, the defendant entered a plea of guilty; and on May 19, 1936,




Ku Al ~.l: ~ *~~AI~Il ~1N~"WN1~


298


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. L,


Compound which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "V2 A Vermi-
Tox Product Moth Proofing Compound Protection for One Year Against Moths
and Moth Larvae if Applied to Wool or Fur According to Directions", and "A
safe, economical, and lasting protection against moths and their larvae if used
according to directions", borne on the bottle label, were false and misleading
and that thereby the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the pur-
chaser, since they represented that the article when used as directed would
afford protection against moths and moth larvae; whereas the article would
not afford protection against moth and moth larvae when used as directed.
On April 17, 1936, a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf of the
defendant company and the court imposed a fine of $50.
M. L. WILson, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1490. Misbranding of Florantin. U. S. v. Henry A. Fischel, Inc. Plea of guilty.
Fine, $10. (I. & F. no. 1781. Sample no. 6272-B.)
This case involved an insecticide the labeling of which failed to declare the
inert ingredients present therein.
On April 15, 1935, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of


Pennsylvania, acting upon a report
district court an information again
alleging shipment by said company
Pennsylvania into the State of Floi
misbranded insecticide within the


The article was alleged


inert substances, namely


'Si


stances do not prevent, des
percentage amount of each
were not stated plainly and
containing the article; nor i
of each ingredient of the
percentage of the inert sub
or at all. on the said label.
On March 6, 1936, motio
defendant company on Jun
without opinion. On June


by the Secretary of
st Henry A. Fischel,
on or about July 6, 1
rida of a quantity of
meaning of the Insec


Agriculture, filed in the
Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.,
1934, from the State of
Florentin which was a
ticide Act of 1910.


n
e3,
3,


the defendant company and the court imposed a fine of $10.


M.L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of
ibstances other than nicotine, which said inert sub-
;troy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the name and
inert substance or ingredient present in the article
Correctly, or at all, on the label borne on the bags
n lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount
article having insecticidal properties and the total
stances present therein stated plainly and correctly,


to quash the information filed on behalf of the
21, 1935, was heard by the court and overruled
1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of

















INDEX TO NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1451-1490


Antzix:


N. J. no.


Bonide Chemical Co., Inc-....
Arsenical copper lime dust:
Tennessee Corporation-......
Banol:
Appleman, W. B-R .-...-
Banol Co- .-- -. -----..--
Be Square Sweeping Compound:
Schwarz Paper Co -.--.
Blue Cross Crescent Soluble Pine Oil:
Purity Chemical Products Co_
C. D. Cide Fifteen:
Carpenter Certified Laborato-
ries .. ..... ..... ...- -_-
Ch emo:
Chemo Co .. ---------.......... -
Chlorocide:
Strasenburgh, R. J., Co......
Chlorine disinfectant:
Fuld Bros., [nc.. -----....... -
C. N. Dog Soap:
West Disinfecting Co-- --
Concentrated Moth-Proofing Solution:
Resistal Products Corpora-
tion .... ----------------


De-O-Dit:
Moffatt, W. J-- -- ----......... -
Peripa Co .... -.....--..--
Dovola Creol:
Moth Tab:
Dovola Co- .. ---- ...-- -. -
SmithI, J ... -..------....
Endol Insect Powder:
Exterminating Service Co., Inc.
Exo:


Exo-Nox Co-----......-- -... -
Tipton, R. F .............
Exserco Antiseptic Safety Deodorant
Disinfectant:
Fly Spray:
Parachloro Moth Doom:
Plant Spray:
Exterminating Service Co., Inc_
E-Z:


E-Z Bleach Water Co .
E-Z Products Co .---------- .
Florantin:
Fischel, Henry A., Inc ....
Fly Repeller:
Holcomb, J. I., Manufactur-
ing Co ...--------.---.-
Germ-Ax Moth Crystals:
Moth Tabs:
Termo Chemical Co -. .
Germo Roach and Waterbug Powder:
German Chemical Co-----
-U... ** f *


1486
1469
1454
1454
1477
1475

1479
1473
1476
1468
1452

1461
1472
1472

1463
1463
1457
1474
1474




1457
1466
1466

1490

1470

1462
1488
-j A j-' a


n^ .-t -


uyptoi:
Folsom Extract Co., Inc .....
Hammond's Grape and Rose Dust:
Hammond Paint & Chemici
Co .......
H & D Health Spray:
Haines, J. A ...... -..
Haines Products Co-- ---
Holcomb's Pine-Ola:
Holcomb, J. I., Manufacturin
Co .- --- --- -.. ...


N.
- -
al



- g
ig


Hyposol:
Braun-Knecht-Heinmann Co-
Heimann, B. K--------
Kleenwell Swat Fly and Insect Spray :
Chicago Sanitary Products Co.


Kloria:


active:


Vaporizing Crystals:
Moffatt, W. J ---.. --. ---- .
Peripad Co .....---------
Sanifume Crystals:
Royal Manufacturing Co. of Du-
quesne -----.--.------ ..
Santol:
Industrial Laboratories .....--- -
Lippel, I. M-..---- ----------
Spratt's Black Antiseptic Flea Soap:
Flea and Insect Powder:
Germicide:
Spratt's Patent (America)
Ltd .-------------- .- -
Sulfo-Kresol-Tabs:
Ehrhart & Karl, Inc.-------
10-N Nicotine Dust Special:
Miller Products Co-....
Termox Disinfectant:
Termo Chemical Co---.......


J. BO.
1458

1480
1484
1484

1470
1460
1460
1485
1459
1452
1464
1464
1487
1483
1482

1451


1472
1472

1478
1465
1465



1456
1453
1481
1467


Kloria Co....--------------- .
Liquor cresolis compositus:
West Disinfecting Co...---- .
Maison's Cresol Solution:
Hi-Test Laboratories, Inc.--...
Maison Labs. Co--------
Moth Proofing Crystals:
Termo Chemical Co------
Mulsoid-Sulfur:
Sherwin-Williams Co., Inc--
O. K.'d Farm Louse Powder:
Vitamineral Products Co -- --
Ortho Garden Caltox:
California Spray Chemical Cor-
poration-_-- -
Peripad Moth Deodorizing Prevent-







A 'i


p
>~a;~~


A


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

H1111111153111111111111 11 111 108 81 1
3 1262 08582 4885


'--- .