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:
AA00008549:00023

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text

C7


APR


N. J., I. F. 1491-1525


- F
4


Issued May 1937


V


United


States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]

1491-1525


[Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture,


Washington, D. C., April 5, 1937]


1491. Misbranu
of guilt
The labeling
antiseptic and
tainers. The
the label.
On Septemb


Jersey, a
court an
alleging
State of
Canary
meaning
u-nht


TI
born
septi
all k
is br
ally.
the
and
Use


ling of BartePs Canary Wash. U. S. v. The Shellgram Co.
lty. Fine, $30. (I. & F. no. 1721. Sample no. 67281-A.)
of this product bore false and misleading claims regarding
insecticidal properties and the quantity of contents of the
product contained inert ingredients that were not declared


er 7


, 1934,


acting upon a
Information
shipment by
New Jersey
Wash which
of the Insect
*. .


repo
agai
said
into
was
icide


the United


States attorney


for the District


?lea


of New


rt by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dist
nst the Shellgram Co., a corporation, Newark, N.
company on or about November 14, 1933, from
the State of New York, of a quantity of Bart
a misbranded insecticide and fungicide within
Act of 1910.


ie article was alleged to De mi
e on the carton and the bottle
c Canary Wash It
inds Directions Thi
oken or sore as a prevention
As a bath its cleani
breeding of Mites on Birds.
half Wash", and (bottle) "To
promptly. Directions *


* For Cuts, Scratches and Old
Birds. Fowl. Animals Wherever The


tents
false
label
that t
for t


fluid oz. *
nd misleading a
so as to deceive
to article, when
purposes stated


age the breeding of
effective against all


* I
nd b
e an<
used
on


mites,


or Mange
iy reason
d mislead
as direct
the label,
would be


varieties of


nerict
J.,.
the
thet
the


randed in that the following statements
bels, (carton) "Bartel's Celebrated Anti-
ould be used immediately for sores of
wash is to be applied wherever the skin
ainst infection. Apply it to sores liber-
effects is a large factor in discouraging:
or Spraying for Mites, use half water
Used wherever skin is sore or broken.
Bathe the affected part thoroughly
Sores, do the same. Use this wash on
Skin is Sore or Broken Con-
and other skin diseases on dogs.", were
of the said statements the article was
the purchaser in that they represented
ed, would act as an effective antiseptic
would prevent infection, would discour-
effective against mites, and would be


mange and


all skin diseases on


dogs, and







302


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


tericidal) properties and t
ent therein stated plainly t
The information further
violation of the Food and I
published under that act.
on behalf of the defendant
of both acts.


he total percentage of the inert
nd correctly on the bottle label
charged that the article also w
)rugs Act, reported in notice of j
On October 11, 1934, a plea of g
and the court imposed a fine ol


ingredients
or carton.
ras misbran
judgment no.
guilty was e:
S$30 for vi(


pres-
led min
20117
entered
dla tion


M. L. WILSON,


Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1492. Adulteration and misbranding of Solution Cresol Compound U. S. P. U. S.
v. American Pharmaceutical Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (I. & F.
no. 1673. Sample no. 11045-A.)


This


case


involved


Cresol C(ompound
comp)osition from
Pharmacopoeia, a
sentation as to th


On April 23,
New York, acti
district court
corporation tra
tion on or abo
of New Jersey
U. S. P. (Liqu
in violation of t
The article v
on the label, "S'
represented thi
thereof specific


copoeia


stan4
ingrn
the
fatt3
artic
U S
with
the i


J
n<
e


193
ang
an


an interstate


. S.
quor
the
nert
, the


P. (Liq
cresolis
label of
content
United


shipment


uor Cresolis
compositus
which bore
of the article
States attor


an article,


labeled


"Solution


Compositus)", which differed in
as defined in the United States
a deceptive and misleading repre-


.ney
*ney


for the


Southern District


upon a report by thle Secretary of Agriculture, filed
information against the American Pharmaceutical


ding at New
ut June 3, 19
of a quantity
)r Cresolis Coi
he Insecticide
vas alleged to
solution Cresol
at the article
d for liquor c


whereas the strength


York,


N.Y


., charging


32, from the S
of an article, 1
mpositus)", tha
Act of 1910.
be adulterated
Compound U. S.
contained the
resolis composite
and purity of I


shipment


corpora-


tate of New York into the State
labeled "Solution Cresol Compound
t was adulterated and misbranded


in that the statement borne
Liquor Cresolis Compositus)"",
*:~~ k*


ingredients an
tus in the Unite
the article fell bh


dard and quality under which it was sold, since
dients and proportions thereof specified for liquor
United States Pharmacopoeia, but phenols other th
Material other than linseed oil had been used
le; and (2) in that the statement on the label, "Sol'
. P. (Liquor Cresolis Compositus)', represented thi
the pharmacopoeia for liquor cresolis compositus,
ingredients and proportions thereof specified for liquc


it di
eres
an U
as i
ution
at th
and
)r cre


said pharmacopoeia; whereas the article did not comply witi
of the pharmacopoeia, since phenols other than U. S. P.
material other than linseed oil had been substituted for U


for linseed oil.
The article


ie label,
iert wae
e said s
irchasei
id the
united S


itngre
port
since
had 1


was alleged


to be misbl)randed


"Solution Cresol Compound U. S.
ter less than 20 percent", were fal
statements the article was labeled
r, since they represented that the
proportions thereof specified for
states Pharmacopoeia, and that it


dient: whereas the article
ons thereof specified for liq
phenols other than U. S. P.
been used in the preparation


in that


P. (L
se and
so as
article
liquor
contain


d the proportions
d States Pharma-
etow the professed
d not contain the
olis compositus in
. S. P. cresol and
ingredients of the
Cresol Compound
e article complied
that it contained
solis compositus in
i the requirements
cresol and fatty
. S. P. cresol and


the statements


borne


liquor Cresolis Composit
misleading, and by rea
to deceive and mislead
contained the ingredic
cresolis comipositus in
ed water only as an in


did not contain the ingredi
nor cresolis compositus in sa
cresol and fatty material oth
n of the article, and it did


us)
son
the
nts
the
iert


ents and the pro-
id pharmacopoeia,
er than linseed oil
not contain water







1491-1525]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


303


unwarranted insecticidal


sulphur solution
declaration.
On October 2,
of Illinois, acting
district court an
alleging shipment


which


claims.


was


The case


not labeled


also covered


with


the required


a shipment


of lime-


inert-ingredients


1935, the United States attorney for the Eastern District
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
information against H. A. DuBois & Sons, Inc., Cobden, Ill.,
by said company in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910,


on or about February 17 and March 27, 1933, from the State of Illinois into
the State of Tennessee, of quantities of Velvet Dry-Mix and Velvet Bug Dust
which were adulterated and misbranded insecticides, and on or about March
22, 1934, from the State of Illinois into the State of Missouri, of a quantity of
lime-sulphur solution which was a misbranded insecticide and fungicide.
The Velvet Dry-Mix was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and
purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was
sold, since it was labeled "Sulphur, not less than 58% Arsenate of Lead,
not less than 8% Inert Ingredients, not more than 34%"; whereas it contained
less than 58 percent of sulphur, less than 8 percent of arsenate of lead, and


inert ingredients in excess of
The Velvet Bug Dust was
the professed standard and
labeled "Not less than 10%
whereas it contained less tha
inert ingredients in excess of
Misbranding was alleged in
Arsenate of Lead, not less I
with respect to the Velvet D
Calcium Arsenate Not more 1
For Cantaloupes, Cucumbers,
Plants, etc.", with respect to


and by reason (
and mislead thf
tions of sulphur
dients than the
contained a sm;
inert ingredient
not act as an
cucumbers, cab
Misbranding


34 percent.
alleged to be adulterated in that
quality under which it was sold,
Calcium Arsenate Not more than
in 10 percent of calcium arsenate
90 percent.


that the stat


than 8%
ry-Mix,
than 909
Cabbag
the Veli


the said statements
purchaser, since the
and arsenate of lead
amounts so declared
ler proportion of cal
than the amounts de
effective insecticide
ige, potatoes, beans,


of the Velvet


the further reason that
of arsenic present there
expressed as percentum
The lime-sulphur solui
partially of an inert s


Inert
nd t
Iner
, Pot
t Bu


the ar
Velvet
.S


and
on th
umrn a
lared,
gains
rose


Mix and


it fell below
since it was
90% Inert";
and contained


ment, "Sulphur, not less than 58%
SIngredients, not more than 34%
he statements, "Not less than 10%
t" and "Velvet Bug Dust *
atoes, Beans, Rose Bushes, House
g Dust, were false and misleading,
ticles were labeled so as to deceive
Dry-Mix contained smaller propor-
a greater proportion of inert ingre-
e label; and the Velvet Bug Dust
senate and a larger proportion of
and, when used as directed, would
t all bugs that infest cantaloups,
dishes, house plants, etc.


Velvet


the articles contained
in and the amount of
of metallic arsenic, wer
tion was alleged to be :
substance, water, whicl


destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi,
amount of the inert substance so present
and correctly, or at all, on any label borne on
nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and the per
or ingredients of the article having insectici4
the total percentages of the inert substances


Dust


arsenic an
arsenic in
not stated
misbranded
substance
nd the na


therein were
the drum coi
centage amou
dal or fungic
or ingredients


was alleged


d the total amount
water-soluble forms,
on the labels.
in that it consisted
does not prevent,
me and percentage
not stated plainly
staining the article;
nt of each substance
idal properties, and
so present therein,


stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On May 22, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and
the court imposed a fine of $175.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


*


1







304


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


article


was


alleged


Dog Soap For Mange",
misleading, and by rea
mislead the purchaser
when used as directed,
mange that infests dog
act as an effective trea
braiding was alleged f
of an inert substance,


to be misbranded


borne on th
son thereof
, since the
, would act
s; whereas
tment for a
or the fourth
namely, wa


destroy, repel, or mitigate insects,
were not stated plainly and correc


in that


the statement,


"Dodge's


e carton containing the article, was false and
the article was labeled so as to deceive and
said statement represented that the article,
as an effective treatment for any variety of
the article, when used as directed, would not
ny variety of mange that infests dogs. Mis-
ier reason that the article consisted partially
ter, which inert substance does not prevent,
and the name and percentage amount thereof
'tly on the carton label; nor, in lieu thereof,


were the names and percentage amounts of each
article having insecticidal properties, and the
ingredients present therein, stated plainly and c<
On September 28, 1936, the defendant entered
imposed a fine of $20.


substance or ingredient of the
total percentage of the inert
correctly on the carton label.
a plea of guilty and the court


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1495. Misbranding


This
leading
On C
Michig
district
Detroit
Act of


of


Plea of guilty.
case involved a
germicidal and
october 10, 1935,
in, acting upon
court an inform
, Mich., alleging
1910, on or abo


State of G<
The arti<
the labelin
to deceive
was an es


germ


icide


i


2,c
11
a


De-Germ. U. S. v. Century Chemical Products Co., Inc.
Fine, $300. (I. & F. no. 1831. Sample no. 37049-B.)
fungicide the labeling of which contained false and mis-


disinfectant
the United
a report by
nation again:
ehi nmnt hv


'ut April 15, A l
mt April 15,


irgia of a quantity of D
e was alleged to be mis
were false and mislea


and
peci
n a


mislead the purchaser,
ally effective germicide
dilution of 1-30; where


claims.
States attorney
the Secretary
st the Century (
said company in
1935, from the
e-Germ that was
branded in that
ding and were


since
and


they
disinf


r
e(


for the Eastern District of
of Agriculture, filed in the
chemical Products Co., Inc.,
Violation of the Insecticide


State of Michigan
misbranded.
the following state
applied to the arti
presentedd that tl
ctant and would


ements in
cle so as
he article
act as a


it was not an especially effective germ-


icide and disinfectant and would not act as a germicide in a dilution of 1-30:
"De-Germ is an especially effective germicide and disinfectant" and "De-Germ,
when tested, without additional organic matter, by the method employed by the
United States Food and Drug Administration, De-Germ proved to be germicidal
in five minutes when diluted with thirty parts of water Germicidal
Tests Sample De-Germ Organisms Used.


Typhosus


Dilution


1-203. -
1-30- --


Time exposed (minutes)-


Dilution


1-40
1-50


Time exposed (minutes)-


Staphylococcus


Aureus


1







1491-1525]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


305


1496. Alleged adulteration and misbranding of Red Circle
U. S. v. Red Circle Products Co., Inc. Tried to a jury.
of not guilty. (I. & F. no. 1842. Sample nos. 7077-A, 28


Roach Destroyer.
Directed verdict
388-B.)


On December 11, 1935, the United States attorney for the Southern District
of Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Red Circle Products Co., Inc., Houston,
Tex., alleging shipment by said company on or about October 6, 1933, from the
State of Texas into the State of Mississippi, and on or about September 22,
1934, from the State of Texas into the State of Louisiana, of quantities of Red
Circle Roach Destroyer, and charging that the article was adulterated and
misbranded within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its
below the professed standard and quality under which
labeled "Inert ingredients-Wheat flour 15.3%, Sugar


Strength and purity fell
it was sold, since it was
T.7%, Corn meal 3(%";


whereas it contained inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 6l percent,
samples taken from the two lots having been found to contain 66.36 percent and
63.3 percent, respectively, of inert ingredients.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted statements,
borne on the can label, were false and misleading, and that, by reason of the
said statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the


purchaser,
61 percent.


since


it contained


inert


ingredients


a proportions


greater


than


On June 22, 1936, the case came on for trial before a jury and at the conclu-
sion of the evidence offered by the Government, the court directed a verdict of
not guilty on all counts.


M. L.


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1497. Adulteration and misbranding of Standard Sulpho-Carb Antiseptic Tablets.
U. S. v. Standard Chemical Manufacturing Co. and John W. Gamble.
Pleas of guilty. Fines, $30. (I. & F. no. 1869. Sample no. 23069-B.)


This


product


contained


a smaller


proportion


corrosive


declared and the labeling bore false and misleading
alleged effectiveness of the article as a sterilizing agent
the inert ingredients present therein.
On April 16, 1936, the United States attorney for the


acting upon a report by the Secretary (


an
Joh
or


information ag
n W. Gamble,
about January


Minnesota,
adulterated
Act of 1910.


The


article


rain
of
31


st the
Omaha,
, 1935,


quantity of
misbranded


was


alleged


Standard
Nebr.,


al


from the
Sulpho-(
fungicide


to be adult


sublimate


than


claims regarding the
and failed to declare


District


)f Agriculture, filed in thi
Chemical Manufacturing
leging shipment by said
State of Nebraska into
Carb Antiseptic Tablets
within the meaning of


rated in that


its si


t of Nebraska,
e district court


Co., Inc.,
defendants
the State


and


that were an
the Insecticide


:rength


fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was so
it was labeled "corrosive sublimate 16%"; whereas it contained
sublimate, i. e., mercury bichloride, in a proportion less than 16 percent.


article


was alleged


to be minsbranded


borne on the boxes containing the
(box) "Cerrosive Sublimate 16% 1
* Give the sterilized water
chicks on the sterilized water *
water for three seven-day periods"


the follow


ing st


d purity
Id, since
corrosive

aI tements


article and in an accompanying circular,
For sterilizing the drinking water of poultry
to all the poultry Start the baby
until the chicks have had the sterilized
, and (circular) "One of its principal uses


the sterilization of drinking w
septic Tablet dissolved in each
es it The entire flock s


ater


* One


gallon of drill
tould be given


Stand


king water


water so ste


ird Sulpho-Carb
thoroughly ster-
rilized *


in
Ant
ilizi


<-f







306


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount of each and every sub-
stance or ingredient of the article having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties
and the total percentage of the inert substances present therein stated plainly
and correctly on the box label.
The information further charged misbranding of this product-as well as
several other products-in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, reported in
notice of judgment No. 26506 published under that act.
On November 5, 1936, pleas of guilty were entered on behalf of the defendants
and the court imposed a fine of $5 on each count of the information against
each defendant, which, in the case of the counts charging violation of the
Insecticide Act, amounted to $30.
M. L. WILSON, Actino Secretary of Aariculture.


* W V-


1498. Misbranding of tobacco powder. U. S. v. Friedman Tobacco Products Cor-
poration. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1870. Sample no.
39937-B)


This


case


involved


a shipment


failed to declare the inert
On March 3, 1936, the
Pennsylvania, acting upon
district court an informati
tion, trading at York, Pa
August 20, 1935, from the
of a quantity of tobacco
the meaning of the Insecti
The article was alleged


tobacco


powder


the labeling


of which


ingredients.
United States attorney for the Middle District of
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
on against the Friedman Tobacco Products Corpora-
., alleging shipment by said company on or about
State of Pennsylvania into the State of Maryland
powder that was a misbranded insecticide within
cide Act of 1910.
to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of


inert substances or ingredients, namely, substances other than nicotine, which
said substances do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the
name and percentage amount of each inert ingredient of the article present
therein were not stated plainly and correctly on the label; nor, in lieu thereof,
were the name and percentage amount of the inert substance or ingredient
present in the article stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On May 4, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
and the court imposed a fine of $25.


M. L. WILSON


, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1499. Misbranding of
Inc. Plea of
on probation.
This case involved
false and misleading
properties.
On April 24, 1936, t
acting upon a report
court an information


Watkins Dry Insecticide. U. S. v. The J. R. Watkins Co.,
guilty. Fine, $225. Fine suspended and defendant placed
(I. & F. no. 1872. Sample nos. 24430-B, 24556-B.)
an insecticide and fungicide the labeling of which bore
claims regarding its alleged disinfectant and insecticidal


:he United States attorney for the District of New
t by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
i against the J. R. Watkins Co., a corporation


at Newark, N. J., alleging sh
Insecticide Act of 1910, on or
State of New Jersey into the S
Dry Insecticide that was misbr
The article was alleged to b
Dip For removing c
from livestock When


Jersey,
district
trading


ipment by said company in violation of the
about March 4 and March 27, 1935, from the
tate of Pennsylvania of quantities of Watkins
anded.


'e misbranded i
certainn insects
used according


that the statements,
mites *
to directions it will


"A Dry
* ticks
* *


help to rid stock certain other insects This powder is a


I








1491-1525]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


307


plants only. Do not use directly on
off young tomatoes, cabbage, sweet


these plants.
corn plants,


For
etc.,


Cutworms
sprinkle on


that cut
ground


around and


close


taining the article,


to each


plant"


borne on


were false and misleading,


ments the article was labeled so as to dece
since the article was not a dip; when used as
effective insecticide against all varieties of
insects indicated by the term "certain insects
not be effective for all conditions for which


pinches of the
two pinches o
could hogs be
bedding; the
of disinfecting
to directions;
would not dis
would not act


product would not act as a co
f the product would not act a;
deloused by sprinkling a liberf
article, when used as directed,
agents; it would not act as a
it would not act as a disinfe


I-


infect


or tend


to disinfect


n
S
ii


the label


affixed


to the


and by reason of t
ive and mislead t
directed, it would
mites and ticks
" that infest livest
stock are dipped;
trol for lice on cat
a control for lice
I amount of the pri


he
he
not
and
ock
thr
tle
on
odu


cans con-
said state-
purchaser,
act as an


all other
it would
e or four
r horses;
hogs, nor
t in their


did not contain effective amounts
disinfectant when used according
ctant in the bedding of hogs; it


poultry


when


as an effective insecticide against mites


many of the insects that infest cabbage and
squash, pumpkin, and melon vines, and would
against cutworms.
On May 15, 1936, a plea of guilty was en
and the court imposed a fine of $225. Exe
suspended and the defendant was placed on


used


on poultry


directed


or against


cauliflower plants and cucumber,
not act as an effective insecticide


tered on behalf of the defendant
cution of sentence, however, was
probation for 6 months.


M. L. WILSON,


Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1500. Misbranding of Aroma Moth Vaporizer and Termox Moth Proofing Crystals.
U. S. v. Ben Berg and Saul Nathan (Berg & Nathan Sales Co.). Pleas of
guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1875. Sample nos. 33442-B, 35462-B.)
This case involved a shipment of Aroma Moth Vaporizer the labeling of


which bore false and misleading claims
in the control of moths. This product,
Proofing Crystals which also was cover
inert ingredients that were not declared as
On April 2, 1936, the United States att
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Sec
district court an information against Ben
trading as Berg & Nathan Sales Co., Chic
defendants on or about May 1, 1935, from


of Ohio, of a quantity o
1935, from the State of
Termox Moth Proofing
cides within the meaning
The Aroma Moth Vap4


ments, "Aroma Mot]
Kills Moths and M
Feet of Space Use
Drawers, Garment
package label, were
the article was label
represented that the
insecticide against n
against moths when
Misbranding of bo


f Aroma Moth Va]
Illinois into the S
Crystals, which
Sof the Insecticide
orizer was alleged


h Vap
oth I
as a
Bags,


N
4


regarding its alleged effectiveness
and a shipment of Termox Moth
ed by the information, contained
required by law.


orney ror
retary of
Berg and
ago, Ill.,
the State
porizer, an
tate of W


prod
Act
to b


orizer the Concentra
ggs Use One


Moth-Killer
and to Pack


for Clo
Away


the Northern District of
Agriculture, filed in the
Saul Nathan, copartners,
alleging shipment by said
of Illinois into the State
d on or about August 26,
isconsin of a quantity of


ucts were
of 1910.
e misbrand
ted Strengt
Vaporizer
thes Closet
Furs, Blan]


misbranded


in that
of this
r Every
Trunks,
ts", bor


false and misleading and by reason of s
led so as to deceive and mislead the purcha
article when used as directed would act
aoths; whereas it would not act as an effec
used as directed.
th products was alleged for the reason that


insecti-


the state-
Vaporizer
5 Cubic
, Dresser
ie on the


aid statements
Lser, since they
as an effective
tive insecticide

they consisted


<

<
.(


h









308


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


1501. Adulteration and misbranding of All-Nu Roach and Ant Killer and mis-
branding of Scientific Fly Spray. U. S. v. All-Nu Products Co. Plea of
guilty. Fine, $150. (I. & F. no. 1877. Sample nos. 30852-B, 38289-B.)


This case involved two preparations one of which, Scientific Fly Spray, was
labeled with false and misleading insecticidal claims and other misrepresenta-
tions; and the other, All-Nu Roach and Ant Killer, contained a smaller pro-
portion of the active ingredients and a larger proportion of inert ingredients


than declared.
On April 24, 1936, the


United States attorney for the District of New


Jersey,


acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against the All-Nu Products Co., Camden, N. J., alleging
shipment by said company on or about February 26, 1935, from the State of
New Jersey into the State of New York of a quantity of Scientific Fly Spray,
and on or about April 25, 1935, from the State of New Jersey into the State
A


of Pennsylvania of a quantit
that the former product was
and misbranded in violation o
The All-Nu Roach and Ant


y of
misbr
f the
Killed


ll-Nu Roach and Ant Killer, and charging
anded and that the latter was adulterated
Insecticide Act of 1910.


r was


alleged


to be adulterated


in that its


strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which
it was sold, since it was labeled "Sodium-Silico-Fluoride 70%. Inert Matter
30%". whereas it contained sodium silico fluoride in a proportion less than


70 percent,


it contained inert matter in


a proportion greater thai


and it contained an active ingredient in addition to sodium si
namely, sodium fluoride. Misbranding of the All-Nu Roach an
was alleged for the reason that the statements, "Sodium-Silico-F
Inert Matter 30%", borne on the label of the can containing the
false and misleading, and by reason of said statements the article
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained s
fluoride in a proportion less than 70 percent, it contained inert


a- aI


a 30 percent,
lico fluoride,
i Ant Killer
luoride 70%
article, were
was labeled


;odium
matter


silicon


proportion greater than 30 percent, and it contained an active ingredient in
addition to sodium silico fluoride, namely, sodium fluoride.
The Scientific Fly Spray was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,
"Scientific Fly Spray is unexcelled for exterminating and killing flies, moths,
mosquitoes, ants, fleas and water bugs. To kill moths, spray lightly


on rugs,


draperies,


humans and pets *


upholstery or clothing", and "It is absolutely harmless to
Non-Poisonous", borne on the label of the can con-


taining the article, 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 article, when used as directed, would not exterminate flies, moths,
mosquitoes, ants, fleas, and water bugs; would not act as an effective insecticide
against moths in upholstery; and would not act as an effective insecticide


against
and the


other


article


ins'


was


ects named on
not absolutely


poisonous.
On May 26(. 1936. a plea of guilty
and the court imposed a fine of $150.


the label,
harmless


was


without
to humai


entered


repeated applications,
is and pets but was


on behalf


of the defendant


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1502. Adulteration and misbranding of copper lime dust.


G. L. F. Mills, Inc.
no. 5185,6-B.)


Plea of guilty.


Fine, $100.


U. S. v. Cooperative
& F. no. 1879. Sample


This


product contained calcium arsenate in a


proportion


.1,, a S a I


less than declared.
.11 T T 1.-i.








1491-1525]


IN SECTICIDE


ACT


309


the inert substances or ingredients
plainly and correctly, or at all, on t
the article; nor, in lieu thereof, were
substance or ingredient of the article
ties, and the total percentage of inert
and correctly on the label.
On November 19, 1936, a plea of
fendant and the court imposed a fine
M. L. W


present in the article were not stated
he label attached to the bags containing
the name and percentage amount of each
having insecticidal or fungicidal proper-
substances present therein stated plainly


guilty
of $100.


~vas


ELSON, Acting


entered


on behalf


Secretary


of the de-


Agriculture.


1503. Adulteration and misbranding of Easy Sprayer Cartridges No. 1 and mis-
branding of Easy Sprayer Cartridges No. 2. U. S. v. Easy Sprayer &
Chemical Manufacturing Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $20. (I. & F. no.
1881. Sample nos. 31278-B, 31279-B, 37918-B.)
This case involved products described as Easy Sprayer Cartridges No. 1 and
No. 2. The no. 1 cartridges were adulterated and misbranded because of de-
ficiency of nicotine and absence of alcohol, a declared ingredient, and were mis-
branded further because of false and misleading insecticidal claims in the
labeling. The no. 2 cartridges were misbranded because of false and misleading
claims in the labeling regarding their alleged effectiveness in the control of
mildews.
On April 1, 1936, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Easy Sprayer & Chemical Manufac-


during Co., a corporation, Berkeley, Calif., a
on or about January 30 and ApHil 25, 1935.,
the State of Washington, of a quantity of Ea
was a misbranded fungicide, and a quantity
which was an adulterated and misbranded
the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The No. 1 was alleged to be adulterated i
below the professed standard of quality und


labeled "Active Ingredients: Nicotine 8%; Alcohol 10
less than 8 percent of nicotine and no alcohol.


Misbra
"Active I
No. 1 is
insects",
the said
purchase
less than
used as
many of


alleging shipment by said company
from the State of California into
sy Sprayer Cartridges No. 2 which
of Easy Sprayer Cartridges No. 1
insecticide within the meaning of

n that its strength and purity fell
er which it was sold, since it was


whereas it contained


nding of the No. 1 was alleged for the reason that the statements,
ingredients: Nicotine 8%; Alcohol 10%"'' and Easy Sprayer Cartridges
effective in the control of ants, red spider and some scale
borne on the carton label, were false and misleading and by reason of
statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the
r, since the said statements represented that the article contained not
8 percent of nicotine and not less than 10 percent of alcohol and, when
directed, would act as an effective control for ants, red spiders and
the common scale insects; whereas the article contained less than


8 percent of nicotine, it contained no alcohol, and, when used as directed, would
not act as an effective control for ants, red spiders, or many of the common
scale insects.
Misbranding of No. 2 was alleged for the reason that the statements "Easy


Sprayer Cartridges Num
results, apply the spray
Easy Sprayer Cartridge
and misleading and by r
and mislead the purchase
as directed, would act a,


*2 *
rectly upox
. 2 is effect
son thereof
since they
n effective


* For Mildew To
n the foliage for the control
ive in the control of mildew",
the article was labeled so as
represented that the article,
control for mildew; whereas


obtain best
of mildew.
were false
to deceive
when used
the article.


ber
di
No
ea
er,
s a








310


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., t. F.


tion, Jersey City, N. J., a
4, April 27, and May 22,
New York, of quantities
insecticide and fungicide
The article was alleged
"Contents One Gallon" ai
and by reason of the sai(
and mislead the purchase
1 gallon and each of the
article.
On May 29, 1936, a ple
and the court imposed a
each of counts 2 and 3
probation for 6 months.


alleging shipment by said company, on
1935, from the State of New Jersey in
of lime-sulphur solution which was
within the meaning of the Insecticide
to be misbranded in that the statement
ad "Contents One Quart", were false
I statements the article was labeled sI
ir, since each of the larger cans conta
smaller sized cans contained less than


a of
fine
were


guilty was entered
of $75 on count 1.
suspended and the


or about April


t<

A
s


ti
1


) the State of
a misbranded
ct of 1910.
on the labels,
nd misleading
as to deceive
ned less than
* quart of the


on behalf of the defendant
Fines of $250 imposed on
defendant was placed on


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1505. Misbranding of Fleadex. U. S. v. Walter B. Stevens & Son, Ine.
guilty. Fine, $150. (I. & F. no. 1884. Sample no. 50583-B.)
This product contained an inert ingredient that was not stated on


as is
On
New
distri
York,
from


require
April
York,
ct cou
.N. Y
the S


Fleadex


ed by law.
23, 1936, the United
acting upon a report
trt an information a
., alleging shipment
tate of New York in


which


was


St
by
gai
by
to


misbranded


ates
r the
*nst
said
the


attorney'
Secreta
Walter
compau
State bf


insecticide


y for the Southern
ry of Agriculture,
B. Stevens & Son
ny on or about Ju
New Jersey of a


within


Plea of


the label


District of
filed in the
, Inc., New
ly 10, 1935,
quantity of


meaning


Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbl)randed in


inert substance
amount of the
and correctly o
lieu thereof, w
ingredient of th
of the inert sub
label.


On May
the court


or
said
In th
ere
e ar
)stan


ingredient, namely
inert substance so
e label affixed to
the name and pe
ticle having insecti'


L


, water,
present
the can
rcentage
cidal pro


+.
that it consisted partially of an
and the name and percentage


therein were no
containing the
amount of eac
perties and the


ce present therein stated plainly


corre


t stated plainly
article; nor, in
h substance or
total percentage
ctly on the can


5, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and
imposed a fine of $150.
M. L. WILSON. Aclino Secretaryn of Aariculture.


- V


1506. Adulteration and
Death. U. S. v.
(I. &. F. no. 1885.
This case involved a


respect to ti
antiseptic a
labeling of w
On April
Pennsylvania
the district
Erie, Pa., al
Act of 1910,


ie iner
nd disi
Thich b
9, 1936
t, acting
court
leging
on or


Lt
n
>o
I,
ag
a
s


misbranding of Cresoleum and
Erie Drug Co. Plea of guilty.
Sample nos. 37370-B, 44320-B.)
shipment of Cresoleum which


misbranding of
Fine, $25 and


was


ingredients, its carbolic acid coefficie
fectant properties; also a shipment o
re false and misleading insecticidal cla
the United States attorney for the V
upon a report by the Secretary of A
n information against the Erie Drug
hipment by said company in violation
about March 27, 1935, and August 15,


misbranded


Sweet
eoste.

with


nt, and its alleged
f Sweet Death the
ims.
Western District of
kgricniture, filed in
Co., a corporation,
Sof the Insecticide
1935, respectively,


from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of New York of a quantity of







1491-1525]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


311


for cuts and bruises at the dilution of one teaspoonful to a pint of water;
whereas it contained inert matter, namely, water and mineral oil in a propor-
tion much greater than 15 percent, it possessed a carbolic acid coefficient less
than 4, namely, 3 by F. D. A. method, and it would not act as an antiseptic
and disinfectant for cuts and bruises at the dilution of one teaspoonful to a
pint of water.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the Sweet Death for the reason that
the statement, "Sweet Death Kills Flies, Fleas, Roaches, *
Bedbugs", borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading and by reason
of the said statement the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead
the purchaser, since the said statement represented that the article when
used as directed would act as an effective insecticide against flies, fleas,
roaches, and bedbugs; whereas the article when used as directed, would
not act as an effective insecticide against flies, fleas, roaches, and bedbugs.
On April 13, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
M. L. WILSON. Acting Secretaru of Auriculture.


a


1507. Misbranding of Shine A Stine. U. S. v. 36 Boxes of Shine A Stine. Default
decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1887. Sample no.
52318-B.)


product was misbranded on account of false
labeling regarding its alleged sterilizing and b


the amount of available chlorine present
of the containers, and failure to declare
On March 14, 1936, the United States
of Texas, acting upon a report by the S
district court a libel praying seizure and
A-Stine at Dallas, Tex., alleging that thi
state commerce on or about January 9,


from Indianapol
secticide Act of 1
The article wa
borne on the b
Sterilizer *
utensils *


solution


is, ]
1910.


md.,


charging


II


therein,
the inert
attorney
secretary
condemn
e article
1936, by
aisbrandi


I
I


,he
ing
fo:


and misleading claims
actericidal effectiveness,
weight of the contents
redients.
r the Northern District


of Agriculture, filed in the
ation of 36 boxes of Shine-
had been shipped in inter-


LI


the Walter


violation


Miller
of the


as alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements
ox labels, "Sterilizer Shine-A-Stine is a *
* to be used in sterilizing of food and drink glassware and
Beer Coil (cleans and sterilizes) The above standard


* sterilize


* dishes


silverware, sinks, bath tubs, woodwork,
from most sterilizers it not o
dry:-Use two tablespoonfuls in water,
thirty minutes (preferable over night) *


ard s<
gallon
solutic
able c
ficient
made
article
indical
vide a
Ut wou
was 5


F



I


lution. Dilute one-half ounce (2
of water. Wash thoroughly and
n has a chlorine content of 200 P. P.
chlorine which is recognized by Heal
to kill bacteria Net Weight, 5 lbs.",
with intent to deceive purchasers
would act as a sterilizer that wo


~edtha


t it would,


when added


solution containing 200 parts pe
Ild kill all bacteria and that the
pounds; whereas the article w


not sterilize the objects and
__ -- _,A3 a. J J ^ S -


ings i
a


rin


, cooking


utensils


* Shine-A-Stine


nly sterilizes *
allowing clothes
* *. Direction
tablespoons) of
rinse with clear


1
s

w


ice boxes,


differs


* For Laun-
to soak at least
for Use:-Stand-
Shine-A-Stine per
ater. The above


M. (200 parts per million) of avail-
th authorities to be more than suf-
were false and misleading and were
in that they represented that the
uld sterilize the objects and- things
water in the proportion stated, pro-
illion of available chlorine, and that


net weight of
would not act
indicated, whe


the contents of the boxes
as a sterilizer and would
n added to water in the


This
the


- A-








312


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


1508. Adulteration and misbranding of Dairm
Default decree of condemnation and
Sample no. 62402-B.)
This product was labeled to indicate that
whereas it contained no available chlorine.
misleading claims regarding the sterilizing
article.
On March 19. 1936. the United States attor


Texas, acting
district court
Dairex at Dal
commerce on
Orleans, La.,
Insecticide Ac
The article
Over 2.5% C
whereas it co
chlorine in av;
The article
appearing in
Chlorinated C
Carbonate .5%


cially recomm
water is suffice
as follows: C]
valve. Put in
stand a few h
to eliminate a
boxes, garbage
glasses, etc.,
ounce to four
bators, coops,


upon


a
las,
or
and
t of
was


rej


)ort by the Secret


libel praying seizure
Tex., alleging that th
about June 25, 1935,
charging adulteration
1910.
alleged to be adulte


ex. UT. S. v.
I destruction.


2 Drums
(I. & F.


of Dairex.
no. 1889.


it contained available chlorine,
The labeling also bore false and
and deodorant properties of the

ney for the Northern District of
ary of Agriculture, filed in the


and condemnation of two drums of
e article had been shipped in interstate
by Charles Dennery, Inc., from New
a and misbranding in violation of the


r


ated in


Chlorine, Active Ingredients,
ntained no available chlorine
ailable form.
was alleged to be misbrande
the labeling "Contains Over
compound 12.5%, Alkaline S
9, The Ideal Non Corrosive G


end'


ed


for sterilizing


all equi


ient to make a sterilizing solu
lose the inlet valve and dra
to the filter one pound Dair
ours, then open the outlet val
ny odor of chlorine. *
cans, etc., clean and free
should be rinsed in water
gallons hot or cold water
t It sc i non-th


L/Lt-t


is recommended.


poisonous
etc. One
sterilizing
sure to th
solution.


sterile


Dairex
solution


ounce (heapin
solution conta
roughly wash
Change the


-8to-
Kills
that


g tablespo
in ing over
and clean
sterilizing


Ul,* U J-I Ln L e;
Bacteria
eliminates


onful)


to


that it was labeled


Chlorinated Compound
nor chlorinated compound


d in
2.5%


containss
12.5%";
having


that the following statements
Chlorine, Active Ingredients,


;odium Compound 82.5%, Sodium
ermicide Dairex is espe-
pment. One ounce to each gallon
ition. Clean and sterilize the filter
in the filter then close the outlet
ex for every 50 gallons water; let
ve and rinse thoroughly with water
It will keep refrigerators, bread
from foul odors. Dishes,


containing


Dairex.


for cleaning and
drinking water of
* Dairex
the foulest odors
four gallons of


ste
chi
prod
froi
wate


* One
rilizing incu-
ks and fowls
luces a non-
m milk cans,
r will give a


50 parts per million available chlorine. Be
all dairy equipment before using sterilizing


solution at each


milkin,


Dairex Kills Bacteria", were false and misleading and we
intended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the
represented that the article contained chlorine and a chlor
containing chlorine in an available form, that it was an idea
it would produce a sterile solution or sterilizing solution an


and keep refrigera
free from foul odo
and so forth, that i
mended, that it wo
ounce, a heaping ta
solution containing
would kill bacteria


tain chlorine
it was not a
Sillllfinn oirl


tors, bread
rs and woul
ts use in the


uld eli
iblespo
over
when


boxes, garbage cans, and so
d be an effective germicide fo
drinking water of chicks and


inate the foulest odors from milk
onful, to 4 gallons of water would
50 parts per million available chlo


used a


or chlorinated comI
n ideal germicide,
xrnndt? nnl- Qforilivo


g time. *
re designed and
said statements
inated compound
L germicide, that


d would s
forth, clei
r dishes,
fowls was
cans and
give a ste
rine and


terilize
an and
glasses,
recom-
that 1t
rilizing
that it


s directed; whereas the article did not con-
pound containing chlorine in available form,
would not produce a sterile and sterilizing
Twnilrcl nn- Ir7OO Tson rofrhn'n1rfM bIroond bnvoq.


\


/ *


i







1491-1525]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


313


an information against the Justrite Co., a corporation trading at Jersey City.
N. J., alleging shipment by said company on or about October 7, 1935, from the


State of New Jersi
Flea Powder which
meaning of the Inst
The article was
fell below the prof
it was labeled "Na
stained naphthalene
inert ingredients in
The article was
lene 38%, Inert In
training the article,
ments the article
since it contained
inert ingredients in


ey into the State of New Yo
was an adulterated and misb
ecticide Act of 1910.
alleged to be adulterated in
essed standard and quality u


iphthalene


38%,


Inert


rk, of a quantity of Justrite
)randed insecticide within the


that its strength
nder which it was


Ingredients


in a proportion much lower th
a proportion much greater tha
alleged to be misbranded in ti
gredients 24%", borne on the
were false and misleading and
was labeled so as to deceive
much less than 38 percent of
a proportion much greater tha


On May 15, 1936, a plea of guilty
and the court imposed a fine of $50.


was entered


an 3
n 24
hat t
label
by r
and
nap
n 24


and
sold


purity
since


24%"; whereas it con-
8 percent and contained
percent.
he statements "Naptha-
affixed to the can con-
eason of the said state-
mislead the purchaser
hthalene and contained
percent.


on behalf


of the


defendant


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1510. Adulteration and misbranding of Sterilae Si
Sterilae Solution. Default decree of ec
(I. & F. no. 1900. Sample nos. 62281-B, 6228
This product contained a smaller proportion
larger proportion of inert ingredients than decl
also bore false and misleading claims relative to
properties, and other misrepresentations.


On April 29,
Texas, acting uj
court a libel p
ounce, and 5-po
that the article
March 8, 1927,


1936, the United
pon a report by the
raying seizure an
und bottles of Ste
had been shipped
and in part on or


)lution. U. S. v. 171 Bottles of
ondemnation snd destruction.
12-B.)


of activ
ared on
its sterili


States attorney for the
Secretary of Agricultur
d condemnation of 171
rilac Solution at San Ai
in interstate commerce
bout April 24, 1930, by


e ingredients and a
the label. The label
zing and disinfectant

Western District of
e, filed in the district
2-ounce, 8-ounce, 16-
ntonio, Tex., alleging
in part on or about
the Sterilac Co. from


North Chicago, Ill., 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 since
it was labeled "Germicidally active ingredient, 94%; inactive (monohydrated
sodium carbonate), 6%"; whereas it contained a germicidally active ingredient
in a proportion less than 94 percent and contained inactive or inert ingredients


in a proportion
inert material
chloride.
The article w


borne on
(monohyd
poisonous
coops shot
heaping t<
should be


much
other


greater than 6 percent, and it contained inactive or
than monohydrated sodium carbonate, namely, sodium


as alleged


to be misbranded in


the bottle labels, "Germicidally
rated sodium carbonate), 6% 'An
and non-caustic Disinfectant *
lid be thoroughly disinfected by sp
easpoonful to 5 gallons of water)
thoroughly cleaned with alkali


with a Sterilac Solution


Then


spray


Solution


the walls,


that the following


active ingredi
ideal disinfec
* Poultry
raying with St
Incubators anm
nd hot water


(one teaspoonful to one gallon o


ceilings


floors


(one teaspoonful to five gallon
l j-. n t n ,-h 4-- /- 0 t n- n- a-* S- A .J-t 4- r n* r ^ a^ -^


A.-^


~of
of~
4-tn


incubator I
'ater)", wer


e
e


ent,
tant
hou


erilac
,d Incu
and
rater)
houses
false


statements,


94%
*


ses, ya


inactive
* non-
rds and


Solution (one
bator Houses
then washed
to kill germs.
with Sterilac
and mislead-







314


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I. F.


Misbranding was
ments. "Disinfectant


alleged
*


I


ing, suck through the teat cups
first cold water, then hot alkalii
solution-one level teaspoonful
and teat cups in Sterilac solut
of water. Be sure the tubes ar
Four pounds of salt to each 5 ga
and prevent freezing. To main
required (as shown by the use
spoonful of Sterilac to each 5 g


taken apart
Bottles, Pails
gallons of wa
to 5 gallons
taurants, Sod
Sterilac to 5


and thorot
, Pans and
ter. Wood
of water
[a Fountain
'llAnnQ nf


highly
Food
en Ute
(hot)


and
w atot


and 8-ounce bottles, and simil
tles were false and misleading,


labeled and


branded


so as


c]


the further reason that the following state-
Milking Machine Parts Immediately after milk-
and tubes, before removing from the machine,
ne water, then hot water, followed by Sterilac
to a gallon. Now completely immerse tubes
ion-one level teaspoonful to each 5 gallons


e filled
llons of
tain effi
of the
gallons .
leansed


with the
Sterilac
cient act
Sterilac
Once a
by scru


solution, and 4
Solution increa,
ion, and each
eating outfit)
week the mach


bbi


Containers-One tea
nsils, Tubs, Barrels,
prolonged contact
Hospitals-Rinse di
", borne on the labi
ar statements on the
and by reason of the


to deceive and


ontain no air.
se its efficiency
week, or when
, one-half tea-
ines should be


ng. Dairy Utensils, Milk
spoonful of Sterilac to five
and Vats-One teaspoonful
is desirable. Hotels, Res-
shes in one teaspoonful of
els affixed to the 16-ounce
labels of the 2-ounce bot-
said statements the article


mislead


the purchaser


since it


would not be effective as a disinfectant for the purposes indicated and at the
dilutions specified.
On July 7, 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 'Agriculture.


1511. Adulteration and misbranding of Chipman Dry Powdered Bordeaux Mix-
ture. U. S. v. 1,080 4-Pound and 432 Pound Bags of Chipman Dry
Powdered Bordeaux Mixture. Decree of condemnation. Product re-
leased under bond to be relabeled. (I. & F. no. 1903. Sample no. 54133-B.)
This would cause injury to certain vegetation on which it was intended to
be used. It contained an excessive amount of siliceous material.
On May 11, 1936, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of


Pennsylvani
district court
and 432 1-p


caster, Pa.,
on or about
Brook, N. J
Insecticide 2
The article
been substiti
stance or su
it was inten
The article
Mixture *
and blotch,
label, were
article was
not bordeau
and siliceou


a, acting upon a
t a libel prayi
ound bags of C
alleging that ti
February 18,
., and charging


Act of 1910.
le was alleged
uted in part fo
ibstances which
ded to be used.
e was alleged t


use 8 t
false and
labeled so
x mixture,
s material


serious injury to such
On July 1, 1936, th


Report
ag seizu
!hipman
ie article
1936, b:
adultei


by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
re and condemnation of 1,080 4-pound bags
Dry Powdered Bordeaux Mixture at Lan-
e had been shipped in interstate commerce
y the Chipman Chemical Co., from Bound
ration and misbranding in violation of the


to be adulterated in that siliceous material had
r bordeaux mixture and in that it contained a sub-
would be injurious to certain vegetation on which


o:0


be misbranded in


or apples *
o 9 pounds to 50
misleading and by
as to deceive and
but consisted of a
and when used on
trees.
e Chipman Chemica


that the statements,
the late sprays for


gallons of
reason of
mislead the
compound
apple trees


having


"Bordeaux
bitter rot


water", borne on the
the said statements the
purchasers since it was
or compounds of copper
as directed would cause


appeared


as claimant,


,iin',nnn+M n- P~ nnn^rvrltti nnn- 4\-4n mocr^ an fn-rnAl\t^r~ i o,-, 4+* MtnCIC n nrf~//-nR +ho o+ +hnii n'lrn^in't"


I

I







1491-1525]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


315


I i .. 1.. -.4 .4 nfl- I- 2-I- -


A -t- -.~- .~ n S -.- ~ -.i. -~ -~ rl~~


commerce on or aoout iovemDer n, 1U6o, Dy mue Apnne ilanuaicturIulg u.,
from Madison, N. J., and charging misbranding in violation of the Insecticide
Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of
inert substances, i. e., substances other than sulphur, which inert substances
do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi, and did not bear the
name and percentage amount of each of the inert ingredients plainly and cor-
rectly stated on the label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage
amount of each and every ingredient having insecticidal or fungicidal prop-


erties correctly stated on the label.
On June 22, 1936, no claimant having appeared, judgment
was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


of condemnation


M. L.


WILSON, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1513. Misbranding of Aready Roost Paint. U. S. v. 36 Quart Cans, 59 Pint Cans,
and 48 Half-Pint Cans of Arcady Roost Paint. Decree of condemnation.
Product released under bond to be relabeled. (I. & F. no. 1908. Sample
no. 63129-B.)


The labeling of this
regarding its effective
ingredients present in
On May 26, 1936, th
acting upon a report
court a libel praying
Paint at Minneapolis,


product contained false and misleading representations
ess against poultry mites and failed to declare the inert
the article.


e United
by the
seizure a
Minn.. I


interstate commerce in part on
about December 23, 1935, by the
and charging misbranding in vio
The article was alleged to be


borne on th
scraping ol
cross arms
roosts. On
tornm coops
sufficiently
therefore r
of *
statements
since they


States attorney for the District
Secretary of Agriculture, filed i


:1 condemnation of 143 cans <(
leging that the article had
or about October 19, 1935, an
Arcady Laboratories, Inc., fr
lation of the Insecticide Act
misbranded in that the folio


I

(

I

I


e can label, "Clean roost thoroughly wiping off all dirt
I all lime or whitewash. Just paint the top sides
with Arcady Roost Paint, using about one ounce to
e pint will treat over three hundred feet of roosts.
paint the wire with Arcady Roost Paint. Arcady I
potent so that one application will last four or five days


recommend a
* mites", w
the article
represented


an effective insecticide
reacted, would not act a


second application a week later
ere false and misleading, and
was labeled so as to deceive anm
that the article, when used as
against mites; whereas the ar
s an effective insecticide against


of Minnesota,
n the district
Arcady Roost
en shipped in
in part on or
a Chicago, Ill.,
1910.
ng statements
and dust and
of roosts and
fifteen feet of
For wire bot-
Loost Paint is
. We


to completely free birds
by reason of the said
d mislead the purchaser
directed, would act as
*ticle, when used as di-
mites.


The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially
of inert substances, namely, water and soap, and the name and percentage
amount of each of the inert substances present in the article were not stated
plainly and correctly on the can label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name
and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient of the article having
insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert substances present
therein, stated plainly and correctly on the label.
The libel further charged misbranding of the product under the Food and
Drugs Act reported in notice of judgment no. 26974 published under that act.
On November 18, 1936, the Arcady Laboratories, Inc., claimant, having ad-
mitted the material allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was
entered and it was ordered that the product be released under bond conditioned
that it be relabeled.


[

i






316


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


state commerce by Baltus Rolfs, Inc., from West Bend, Wis., in various ship-
ments on or about April 16, May 7, and May 15, 1936, and charging misbranding
in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements,


"Mothwool.
entific Discov


have
Wool
laid t
worm
days.
Keep


been th
also co
herein
, which


A moth
ery This
roughly
stains a
from hat
does all


destruct
carton


ant Moth Wool
contains Moth


* *
Wool in


impregnated with food that moths
devitalizing substance which positive
ching, thereby eliminating the desti
the damage. The clothes moth live


It is harmless, but its eggs must be destroyed.
the Moth from Hatching Its Larva In Your Home i


Further Damage By Mot
apparel, your rugs, drape
attack. Follow
closet, depending on size,
upholstered furniture", b<
the label and in an accord
reason of the said state


lead th
reacted.


moth e
larvae;
insectic
not kil
alleged
amount
therein
and in
substan
of each
plainly


e purchaser, since
would act as an e
ggs from hatching
whereas the article
ide against moths,
I moth eggs, and
to be misbranded
of arsenic and ti
were not stated on
that it consisted
ces other than ars
inert substance
and correctly on t


hs.
ries
the


Moth Wool assists you to
, upholstered furniture and
directions on pad. Use two


An Amazing, New Sci-
the form of pads which


seek. Moth
'ely prevents the eggs
ructive larva or moth
s only about 10 to 14
Moth Wool does this.
And You Will Prevent
protect your wearing
anything that moths
or more pads for each


one or more for chests and one on the under side of
orne on the carton, and similar statements borne on
npanying circular, were false and misleading and by
ents the article was labeled so as to deceive and mis-
they represented that the article, when used as di-
ffective insecticide against moths and would prevent
, would kill moth eggs, and would eliminate moth
e, when used as directed, would not act as an effective
would not prevent moth eggs from hatching, would
would not eliminate moth larvae. The article was
further in that it contained arsenic, and the total


he amount
the label
partially
senic triox
or ingredi
he label:


I
L.
Li
I


of arsenic in water-soluble forms
expressed as percentum of metallic
of inert substances or ingredients,
ide, and the name and percentage
ent present in the article were no
ior, in lieu thereof, were the name


present
arsenic;
namely,
amounts
it stated
and per-


centage amount of each substance or ingredient of the article having insecti-
cidal properties and the total percentage of the inert substance present therein
stated plainly and correctly on the label. Misbranding was alleged with respect
to one lot for the further reason that the statements (carton), "The pads in this
package contain less than 2 percent of arsenic trioxide. This pad con-
tains less than 2 percent of arsenic trioxide", borne on the label, were false and


misleading and were
chasers, in that they
of arsenic trioxide;
trioxide.
On August 21 and


applied to the article so as to deceive and mislead pur-
represented that the article contained less than 2 percent
whereas it contained more than 2 percent of arsenic


October 23,


lOGO,


Baltus


Rolfs, Inc.,


having appeared


one case and consented to the entry of a decree and no appearance having been
made in the remaining case, judgments of condemnation were entered and it
was ordered that the product be destroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1515. Adulteration and mishbranding of Hartz Mountain My-T-Mite Powder.
U. S. v. Hartz Mountain Products, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, 300.
(I. & F. no. 1915. Sample nos. 50778-B, 52151-B.)
This case involved two shipments of an insecticide, of which one lot contained
a smaller proportion of sulphur than declared and no naphthalene, which was


claired a


S U


Singrediei


it, and the other lot was misbranded as to the identity







1491-1525]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


317


portion of not less
proportion less tha
Misbranding of
15%, Naphthalene
toxin 2.4%" with
and misleading an


than 15 percent; whereas the article contained sulphur in a
n 15 percent and contained no naphthalene.
the product was alleged in that the statements, "Sulphur
15%" with respect to one lot, and "Active Ingredients, Tuba-
respect to the remaining lot, borne on the labels, were false
1 by reason of the said statements the article was labeled so


as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since the product in the former lot con-
tained less than 15 percent of sulphur and no naphthalene, and the product in
the latter lot contained no tubatoxin, the active ingredients consisting of
pyrethrum powder and sulphur.
On August 4, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant,
and on August 11, 1936, a fine of $300 was imposed.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1516. Misbranding of Patterson's Cedarix Tubes. U. S. v. 4 Gross of Patterson's
Cedarix Tubes. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. &
F. no. 1916. Sample no. 57119-B.)


The labeling of this product


bore false and misleading


claims


regarding


alleged effectiveness in the control of m
On July 2, 19'36, the United States
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Se
trict court a libel praying seizure and
Cedarix Tubes at Chicago, Ill., alleging.


interstate commerce on or about May 1l


attorney for the Northern District of
cretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
condemnation of 4 gross of Patterson's
g that the article had been shipped in
. 1936. bv Patterson-Bateman from Los


S 7 U


Angeles, Calif., and charging misbranding in
1910.


violation of the


Insecticide Act of


The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Use one per
garment Patterson's Cedarix Tubes For repelling moths from chests trunks
drawers blankets furs pianos and overstuffed furniture", borne on the label,
were false and misleading and by reason of the said statements the article was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since it would not repI)el moths
and would not protect blankets and overstuffed furniture from moth damage.
On October 2, 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


Agriculture.


1517. Misbranding of Clen-Zit. U. S.
uets Co.). Plea of guilty.
53104-B.)


v. Jacob A. Meinhardt
Fine, $25. (I. & F. no.


(Laboratory Prod-
1917. Sample no.


This product contained


statement that
ingredient.
On July 23,
Illinois, acting


district


is require


193(
up(





an inert ingredient and its


ed


in the


the United


) 11


court an info


i report
rmation


case


States
by the
against


at
Sec
Ji


Laboratory Products Co., Chicago, ll., a
on or about December 30, 1935, from the
Georgia of a quantity of Clen-Zit, that
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbrand


a fungicide


torney
cretary
acob A.
alleging
State
was a


led in


bel failed t
containing


for the Norther
of Agriculture,
Meinhardt, tr


shipment
of Illinois
misbrandec


) bear


an inert


n District
filed in
adding as


by said defendant
into the State of
1 fungicide within


it consisted


partially


inert substances or ingredients, namely, substances
chlorite, and the name and percentage amount of ea
present in the article were not stated plainly and co
to the bottles containing the article; nor, in lieu ti
flflmlffi*-n'- nn n\f~- tnlW e^nt ri P +1 1-t- ^^x n ru- In r 4-n n nl f^/'in -n rnrrl^/- n


Other
tch sub
irrectly
hereof,
-,4n -


than sodium hypo-
stance or ingredient
on the label affixed
were the name and
n-- n. r\-fl- n-i* n\ h- n- r'vin t








318


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


On or about August 3, 1936, the United States attorney for the District of
Maine, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 13 cases of Wolcott
Brand Chlorinated Lime at Portland, Maine, alleging that the article had


been shipped in interstate commerce on or about
the Sunlight Chemical Corporation, from Phill
adulteration and misbranding in violation of the
The article was alleged to be adulterated in
fell below the professed standard and quality
that it was labeled "Available Chlorine, Not Less


Not
less
than
Th
"Av


More Than 70%"; wl
than 30 percent and
70 percent.
te article was alleged
ilable Chlorine, Not


70%, The use of Wolcott
on piles of stable manure,
or vegetable matter of all
that may be present *
effectually prevent their br4
cesspools, drains, cellars,
Deodorizing and Disinfect
tackles, stable manure, and


sprinkle W
for Ordina
water will
Allow to s
oughly", bo
and mislea


May 25
ipsdale,
Insectici
that its
under w
Than 30


iereas it contained available chl
contained inert ingredients in


and
R. I
de A(
strei
which
%, IS
orine
a pr


to be misbranded in that the follow
Less Than 30%, Inert Ingredients,


Chlorinated


in
kin
*
eedi
etc
ing
dec


Lime sprinkled


garbage receptacles, or on
ds, will not only destroy a
prevent such matter from
ng therein", "For purifying
. Disinfecting and deodo
indoor closets, outside va
aying animal and vegetable


olcott Chlorinated Lime on lightly", "To use
ry Purposes, one ounce of Wolcott Chlorina
be sufficient. Stir thoroughly, mashing the
ettle and then pour into an old sprinkling
mne on the label affixed to the cans containing
ding, and by reason of the said statements


June 3, 1936, by
., and charging
ct of 1910.
ngth and purity
it was sold, in
nert Ingredients,
in a proportion
portion greater

ring statements,
Not More Than


y in outdoor
decomposing
ny germs of
attracting fli
vaults, water
rising agent'


ults,


garbage


vaults,
animal
disease
.es, and
closets,
" "For
recep-


matter of all sorts,


as a Liquid Disinfectant
ted Lime to a gallon of
lumps if there are any.
can and sprinkle thor-
g the article, were false
the article was labeled


so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the article contained available
chlorine in a proportion less than 30 percent, it contained inert ingredients in
a proportion greater than 70 percent, when used as directed it would not prevent


vaults, stable manui
not prevent their br
might be present i
closets, cesspools, et
when applied by s
purposes.
On September 28,
nation was entered


re, garbage receptacles, etc.,
feeding therein, would not d
i said matter and places,
c., would not disinfect the
prinkling would not act


from
estroy
would
place
as a


attracting flies and would
germs of the disease that
not purify vaults, water
s and things claimed, and
disinfectant for ordinary


1936, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condem-
and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1519. Misbranding of Hercules Drain Pipe Cleaner.
Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I.
30592-B.)


U. S. v. Hercules Chemical
& F. no. 1921. Sample no.


This product was mislabeled with respect
the containers and its alleged germicidal
failure to declare the inert ingredients.
On August 28, 1936, the United States at


of New York
the district (
New York, N


, acting upon a report
court an information $
. Y., alleging shipment


by the
against
by said
e -K -


to the weight of
effectiveness, and


torney


the contents of
on account of


for the Southern


Secretary of
the Hercules
company on


District


Agriculture, filed in
Chemical Co., Inc.,
or about May 6 and
C^-- nS- t-s"Tnw T n../^,








1491-1525]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


319


Misbranding


was


alleged


for the further


reason


that


the article


partially of inert substances or ingredients, i. e., substances other than
hydroxide and sodium carbonate, and the name and percentage amount
inert substance or ingredient present in the article were not stated
and correctly on the can label: nor, in lieu thereof, were the name a
centage amount of each and every substance or ingredient of the article
fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and the total percentage of th
substances or ingredients present therein stated plainly and correctly
label.
On September 15, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf
defendant and the court imposed a fine of $50.


M. L. WILSON, A


acting


Secret wry


consisted


sodium
of each
plainly
nd per-
having
e inert
on the

of the


Agriculture.


1520. Adulteration and misbranding of Melton Brand Bleach Water. I
Milton Cohen and Harry Yaffee (Lunxso Manufacturing Co.). P
guilty. Fines, $10. (I. & F. no. 1925. Sample no. 65961-B.)
This product contained a smaller proportion of the active ingredient
larger proportion of the inert ingredient than declared. The labelin
contained false and misleading claims as to the effectiveness of the
as a germicide.


On September 21, 1936, the United Sta
chusetts, acting upon a report by the
district court an information against


partner]
shipme
of Mas
Bleach
meaning
The
below
it was
Water


rs, trading as the Lux
nt by said defendants
sachusetts into the Sta
Water, which was an
g of the Insecticide Ac
article was alleged to 1


so Manufa
on or abo
te of Rhod
adulterate


. S. v.
leas of

and a
g also
article


tes attorney for the District of Massa-
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
Milton Cohen and Harry Yaffee, co-
cturing Co., Brockton, Mass., alleging
ut February 12, 1936, from the State
e Island of a quantity of Melton Brand
I and misbranded fungicide within the


t of 1910.
be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell


wb
the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, in that
labeled, "Active Ingredients, Available Chlorine 4%, Inert Ingredients,
96%" ,whereas it contained available chlorine in a proportion less than


4 percent and an inert ingredi
percent.
Misbranding was alleged for
gredients, Available Chlorine 4%,


Bleach Does Four Things


bleache


borne on the label affixed
misleading, and by reason
to deceive and mislead the
contained not less than 4


ingredients, i. e.,
that the article
in a proportion
portion greater
water, namely, s
it would not kill
On December
imposed fines in


water only,


nt,


water,


in a proportion


greater


the reason that the statements,
Inert Ingredients, Water 96%",


removes


stains


, kills germs,


the bottles containing the article,
the said statements the article w
irchaser, in that they represented
percent of available chlorine and
in a proportion of not more than


would kill all germs
less than 4 percent,


than 96 percent, it cont
odium chloride, sodium (
all germs.
1, 1936, the defendants
the total amount of $10.
M. L. WILS4


than


"Active In-
and "Melton


and deodorizes",
were false and
as labeled so as
that the article
contained inert
96 percent, and


whereas it contained available chlorine
it contained inert ingredients in a pro-


gained inert ingredients in addition to
arbonate, and sodium bicarbonate, and


entered


Acting


pleas of


guilty


Secretary


the court


Agriculture.


1521. Adulteration and misbranding of Bugine Roach Powder and misbranding
of Mosquito Lotion and Insect Powder. U. S. v. Sam S. Kovaes and
Wn.canl 'la VrSi~tr-m aw^- t r t Tmn-n Enntnl *.- d~a a t fln T n oeAs.- Plans a tA


,








320


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


cide Act of 1910,


on or about July


18 and


August 14,


1935,


from


Illinois into the State of Indiana, of a quantity of mosquito
misbranded; on or about October 28, 1935, from the State of
State of Wisconsin of a quantity of Bugine Roach Powder that
and misbranded, and on or about February 15, 1936, from the
into the State of Michigan of a quantity of alleged insect p


the State of


lotion that was
Illinois into the
was adulterated
State of Illinois
owder that was


misbranded.


The Bugine Roach Powder was charged to be adulterated in that its strength


and purity fell below the profes.
sold since it was labeled "Activ
Bifluoride 2%, Inert Ingredients
fluoride in a proportion less than
less than 2 percent, and inert ingr


;ed
e In
Not
70
edie


standard and quality under which it was
igredients Sodium Fluoride 70%, Sodium
Over 28%"; whereas it contained sodium
percent, sodium bifluoride in a proportion
nts in a proportion greater than 28 percent.


Bugine Roach Powder was cha
"Active Ingredients Sodium Fl


Ingredients
training the
article was
trained less
ingredients


(h-nv


hn ri


it, t-,1


' ,,r U. t,, .,Y.r& *zt
articles, were false and
labeled so as to deceive
sodium fluoride and less s


ma


rged to be misbra
uoride 70%, Sodiu
n the label affixed
misleading, and
and mislead the
odium bifluoride t]


ended in that the state-
min Bitluoride 2%, Inert
1 to the packages con-
by reason thereof, the
purchaser since it con-
[an declared, and inert


proportion greater than declared.


The
mnent
and b)
purchi
(i. e.,


alleged insect powder was charged to
"Insect Powder", borne on the package
y reason thereof the article was labeled
aser since it was not insect powder but
pyrethrum powder) and borax.


Misbranding was charged


with


respect to


be misbranded in
label, was false


that the state-
and misleading,


so as to deceive and mislead the
was a mixture of insect powder


the a


mosquito lotion for the reason that they consisted
or ingredients, namely, in the case of the insect p
powdered pyrethrum flowers and borax, and i3
lotion, subl)stances other than oil of citronella, and
amount of each inert substance or ingredient pre


stated pI)lainly and c
and the percentage
having insecticidal


orrectly on the labels; i
amounts of the substa
properties, and the total


In


r, i
)r, in


alleged insect powder and the
partially of inert substances
owder, substances other than
n the case of the mosquito
the name and the percentage
sent in the articles were not
lieu thereof, were the names


ces or ingredients of the articles
percentage of the inert substances


or ingredients present therein stated plainly and correctly on the labels.
On October 26, 1936, the defendants entered pleas of guilty and the court
imposed fines in the total amount of $50.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1522.


Misbranding of lime-sulphur solution.


Mills, Inc.
677 17-B.)


Plea


of guilty.


Fine,


U. S. v. The Cooperative G. L. F.
$50. (I. & F. no. 1927. Sample no.


This product
statement that i
an inert ingredi
On September
a r -- r "t I


or New
district


contained an inert ingredient and its label failed to bear the
s required in the case of an insecticide and fungicide containing


ent.
21,
A,"


1936,


the Unite


SorK, acting upon a re
court an information
.-* ^ T -I '1


port
aga
1


Nortn 'ollins, IN. Y., alleging snipi
31, 1936, from the State of New Y
quantity of lime-sulphur solution
fungicide within the meaning of the
The article was alleged to be m


+d States attorney for
by the Secretary of A;
inst the Cooperative
if 6


nent by sai1
Tork into th
which was
Insecticide
isbranded in


0~
(


the Western District
riculture. filed in the
4. L..F. Mills, Inc.,
M rv


a company on or X'hout iI
e State of Pennsylvania,
a misbranded insecticide
Act of 1910.
i that it consisted partial


larch(
of a


h r


-Al


The
ments,








1491-1525]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


321


1523. Misbranding of San-Pheno. U. S. v. Huntington Laboratories of Colorado,
Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $150. (I. & F. no. 1930. Sample no. 59427-B.)


The labeling
its germicidal


of this product
and disinfectant


bore false and
effectiveness and


misleading claims
failed to declare


regarding
the inert


ingredients present min the article.
On October 9, 1936, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado,


acting u
court an
Denver,


1936,


fro


1)011


a report


information


Colo.,
m the


of San-Pheno


alleging
State o
which w


again


the Secretary of I
nst the Huntington


shipment
)f Colorado


as


a misbranded


Agriculture, fi
Laboratories


la company
the State
fungicide


It


I


y on or UL
of Califori
within th


*d in the disi
of Colorado,
)out February


tia,


strict
Inc.,
27,


a quantity


meaning


of the


Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alle
its germicidal power
bactericidal action *
Compound Disinfectant
in germicidal strength


?ed


to be misbranded in


is unusually hig
* Directions
t For
For <


Phenol makes a clear solution in water


h *
Dilute in
general car
lisinfecting


the statements


is quick


same pli
bolizing


surgical


SOpOrtiOUS
San-Phen


* *


positive


as Cresol
o is high


instruments


* For use in washing


San-


* *


linen
label
and
and


is and in
affixed
by reason
mislead


quick and


t
t


the utility
o the drum


room


San-Phenol


is without


the article,.


equal"


were false


n of the said statements the article was la
purchasers, in that they represented(1 that


positive bactericidal action,


that it was high


b


, borne


on the


misleading,


eled so as to deceive
the article possessed


in germicidal strength


against all organisms, that it would be effective in disinfecting instruments
and linens in the dilutions specified on the label, and that it was without
equal in the utility room; whereas the article would not be quick and positive
in bactericidal action, it was not high in germicidal strength against all


organisms, it
in the dilution
utility room.
Misbranding
partially of an


wV


would not
specified


alleged


inert


be effective
on the label,


n disinfecting
and it was n


for the further


substance,


namely,


reason


water,


amount of the said inert substance were not stated
the label affixed to the drum containing the article;


instruments
ot without e


the article


the nan
plainly
nor, in


14


e and
and


and li
*qual in


nens
the


consisted
percentage


i'orrectly


lieu thereof,


were


the name and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient of the
article having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and the total percentage of
the inert substance or ingredient stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On November 9, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
and the court imposed a fine of $150.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1524. Adulteration and misbranding of Chipman Calgreen. U. S. v. 541 Bags of
Chipman Calgreen. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
(I. & F. no. 1933. Sample no. 5186-C.)
This product contained water-soluble arsenic, expressed as metallic, in excess
of the amount declared and would be injurious to certain vegetation on which


it was intended to be used.
On September 11, 1936, the


United States att


sota, acting upon a report by the Secretary of
court a libel praying seizure and condemnation
Calgreen at Minneapolis, Minn., alleging that
interstate commerce on or about May 7. 1936,.


orney for the District
Agriculture, filed in t
of 541 4-pound bags o
the article had been
by the Chipman Ch


Inc., from Bound Brook, N. J., and charging adulteration and
^w nt 4- ~ -**v^^ ^^ -t Tn^ *^r~ann4- 4ni- r.*- Anft. nSr-^- ^ lE B Jf


of Minne-
he district
f Chipman
shipped in
?mical Co.,


misbrandin


r


1]


^-^


*^f


r


P







322


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


shaker at the rate of 1% to 2 lbs. per acre depending on the size of the plants.


Make dust
each plant


applications preferably when the foliage is wet with dew.
with a dust cloud but do not heavily coat the leaves.


Enshroud
Spray or


dust with Calgreen as soon as the bugs appear. Continue applications as
conditions require in order to protect the new growth against insect injury.
Spray early and often and thoroughly. Do not wait too long between sprays if
the plants are growing fast. The bugs always attack the new growth first",
were false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the article was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser since they represented that
the article contained water-soluble arsenic, expressed as metallic, in a propor-
tion of not more than 2 percent, that when used as directed it would control
the cotton leaf worm without injury to cotton and the potato bug without
injury to potatoes; whereas the article contained more than 2 percent of water-
soluble arsenic expressed as metallic, and when used as directed it would be
injurious to cotton and potatoes.
On December 12, 1936, no claimant having appeared, judgment of con-
demnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


5


a.
I. L. WILSON, Actinp Secretary of


1525. Adulteration and misbranding of Calgreen.


This


Consent decree of
Sample no. 13316-C.)
product contained


condemnation


and


a smaller proportion


a larger proportion of the inert ingredient
On or about September 22, 1936, the Un


District of
ture, filed
drums of
shipped in
Chemical 4
branding i


The
fell be
The
borne
Calciu
Total


South Carolina, acting 1
in the district court a lib
Calgreen at Charleston,
interstate commerce on
Co frnm Ronndl Trnnlrk


n violation of the


article was alleged t
low the professed sta
article was alleged t
on the label, "Active
m Arsenate-not less
Arsenic (As metallic)


i
I


upon a
)el pray


o
0
(


Sth
ted
rep
ing
alley
)ut
indl


Agriculture.


U T. S. v. 10 Drums of Calgreen.
destruction. (I. & F. no. 1935.


of the active


ingredients


an declared on the label.
States attorney for the Eastern
ort by the Secretary of Agricul-
seizure and condemnation of 10
ging that the article had been
April 29, 1936, by the Chipman
phnrgring ad/iltorntinn innd m..i


rf, *. *J tt tA. %# aa a, a aa a, t. IA a a a
Insecticide Act of 1910.
o be adulterated in that its strength
ndard or quality under which it was
o be misbranded in that the following
Ingredients Paris green-not less than
than 50%, Inert Ingredients--not more
-not less than 28%", were false and


-L -a. I ta a* '& a. JJL

and purity
sold.
statements
25%, Tri-
than 25%,
misleading


since the article contained less than 25 percent of paris green, less than 50
percent of tricalcium arsenate, less than 28 percent of total arsenic expressed
as metallic, and more than 25 percent of inert ingredients.
On October 16, 1936, the Chipman Chemical Co. having admitted the allega-
tions of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of
condemnation was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


I




















INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1491-1525


All-Nu


Roach


and Ant Killer


N. J. no.


All-Nu Products Co--------
Aphine Dry Mix:
Aphine Manufacturing Co -
Arcady Roost Paint:
Arcady Laboratories, Inc---
Aroma Moth Vaporizer:
Berg, Ben------ ---
Berg & Nathan Sales Co-
Nathan, Saul. --------
Bartel's Canary Wash:
Shellgram Co-- -----
Bugine Roach Powder:
Kovacs, S. S
Royal Manufacturing Co. of
Duquesne----------
Weishaus, Joseph --------


Calgreen:
Chipman Chemical


Co., Inc_


Chipman Calgreen:
Chipman Chemical Co., Inc.
Dry Powdered Bordeaux Mixture:
Chipman Chemical Co., Inc__
Clen-Zit:
Laboratory Products Co
Meinhardt. J. A --
Copper lime dust:
Cooperative G. L. F. Mills,
Inc -----------
Cresol compound solution:
American Pharmaceutical Co-


Cresoleum:
Erie
Dairex:


Drug


Co-----


Dennery, Charles, Inc......
De-Germ:


Dodge

Easy


1501
1512
1513
1500
1500
1500
1491
1521
1521
1521
1524,
1525
1524
1511
1517
1517

1502
1492

1506
1508


Century Chemical Products
Co., Inc ----..--.----
's Dog Soap:
Babiglo Co --.r.-------.-
Fundler, Louis -------
Sprayer Cartridges:
Easy Sprayer & Chemical Man-
ufacturing Co -


Fleadex:
Stevens, Walter B.,
Inc--__----
Hartz Mountain My-T-Mite
Hartz Mountain
Inc --------
Hercules Drain Pipe Cleane
Hercules Chemical C


& Son,
Powder:
Products,
r:
!o.. Inc__


Insect powder:
T-- .0-/ .. 4j...__ -J -^ ^ ___ A- _


Justrit
-
Lime-s




Liquor


e Flea Powder:
Justrite Co_-
ulphur solution
Cooperative G.
Inc-------
DuBois, H. A. &
Interstate Cher
turing Co
creosolis compoi
sol compound


Melton Brand Bleach
Cohen, Milton
Luxso Manufac
Yaffee, Harry
Mosquito lotion:
Kovacs, S. S_
Royal Manufac
Duquesne&..
Weishaus, Josel
Moth Wool:
Rolfs, Baltus, I
Patterson's Cedarix T
Patterson-Batem
Red Circle Roach Des
Red Circle Prod
San-Pheno:
Huntington Ia
Colorado, Inc
Scientific Fly Spray :
All-Nu Products


Shine-A-Stine:
Miller,
Soap.


Walter W.,


N. J. no.


Mills,


Sons. Inc...
mical Manufac-
situs. See Cre-
solution.
Water
turning Co-


turing Co. of


)h --


-----
-----


nc_
ubes:
an-
troyer:
ucts Co., Inc-


tboratories
- -


------ -


Co-----


Babiglo Co ..
Standard Sulpho-Carb Antiseptic Tab-
lets :
Gamble, J. W


Sterila

Sweet

Termo


(


Standard Chemical Man
turning Co ---------
1Solution:


1497


ufac-


Sterilac Co-- ------
Death:
Erie Drug Co--- --..............
x Moth Proofing Crystals
Berg, Ben-- ------
Berg & Nathan
Nathan, Saul-- -------


Tobacco powder:
Friedman Tobacco Products
Corporation. .
Velvet Bug Dust:
Dry-Mix:
DuBois, H. A., & Sons, Inc
Watkins Dry Insecticide:
flTn -,'rc.

1493
lAOA


I




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
II3 1262 08582 4893I II i
3 1262 08582 4893