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:
AA00008549:00024

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text
-. a.,,, *~


C;"


N. J., I. F. 1626-1550


Issued October 1937


United


..... .


States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]
1526-1550


tApproved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture,


4 i 68 Misbranding of oil emulsion.
.nolo contendere. Fine, $50
:B75704-B.)
This product contained an inert i
"statemeg leclaring its presence.
On N4tember 11, 1936, the United S
Missourl, acting upon a report by t]
district curt an information against
Mo., allegkg shipment by said compj
State of Missouri into the State of
Which was a misbranded insecticide 4
p within the meaning of the Insecticide
The article was alleged to be misbr
ner. substance or ingredient, water,
sai Inert substance or ingredient w
he label borne on the drums contain:
the name and percentage amount of e


Washington, D.


U. S. v. Marshal
and costs. (I.
ingredient and th

States attorney fo
he Secretary of
t the Marshall I
mny on or about
Illinois of a q
theirr than paris


Act
and
and
tere
ing
ach


C., August 4, 19371


1 Products, Inc. Plea of
& F. no. 1944. Sample no.
4


e label


failed


to bear


r the Eastern District of
Agriculture, filed in the
Products, Inc., St. Louis,
March 5, 1936, from the
uantity of oil emulsion,
green and lead arsenate


of 1910.
ed in that it consisted partially of an
the name and percentage amount of
not stated plainly and correctly on
the article; nor, in lieu thereof, were
substance or ingredient of the article


having insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of the
or ingredients present therein stated plainly and correctly on
On December 7, 1936, a plea of nolo contender was entered
defeilatif and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary


inert substances
the label.
on behalf of the


of Agriculture.


1527. Misbranding of Jol. U. S. v. 3 Cases and 150 Packages of Jol. -Default
decrees of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1686. Sample nos.
58940-A, 69219-A.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-


ing its alleged
containers.
On' February
Middle District
culture, filed in
3 cases and 150


disinfectant


properties


the quantity


of contents


of the


26 and March -22, 1934, the United States attorney for the
of Pennsylvania, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agri-
the district court libels praying seizure and condemnation of
packages of Jol at Wilkes-Barre, Pa., alleging that the article


had been shipped in interstate comme:
and in part on or about February 21,
from Pleasantville, N, J., and charging
eide Act of 1910.
It was aHlleged to be misbranded in
the carton, "Disinfectant, Germicide
fl- fl_j ^-i _-. -_ ^__ _-- rf m C f


rce in part on or about January 20, 1934,
1934, by the American Progress Co., Inc.,
misbranding in violation of the Insecti-

tlbat the following statements borne on
For Washing, Polishing and
411.' _- ^ -1 -_ A T /^ i ntt r.- ,mr- -. -T C







326


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


1528. Misbranding of concentrated lime-sulphur solution.
Bros. Chemical Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.
Sample nos. 24168-B, 24194-B.)


S. v.
& P.


Mechling
no. 1838.


Sample cans taken from each shipment
less than 1 quart, the volume declared on
On November 19, 1935, the United Sta
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secret
court an information against Mechling
Camden, N. J., alleging shipment by sai


and April 2, 1935, from the State of
of quantities of concentrated lime-s
insecticide and fungicide within the
The article was alleged to be mi
Quart 32 Fluid Ozs.", borne on the
by reason of the said statement the


mislead the purchaser, since they rep
one U. S. quart or 32 fluid ounces of t
trained less than that amount.
On March 2, 1937, a plea of guilty
and on March 18, 1937, a fine of $100
M. L. W


New
ulphu
mea
sbrar


of this product were found to contain
the label.
tes attorney for the District of New
ary of Agriculture, filed in the district


Bros. Cher
d company
Jersey into
ir solution,
aing of the
ided in that


can label,
article was


vere


presented that each of the cans contained
he article; whereas each of the cans con-

was entered on behalf of the defendant
was imposed by the court.
i LSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


nical


a corporation,


on or about February 20
the State of Pennsylvania
which was a misbranded
Insecticide Act of 1910.
the statements "1 U. S.
false and misleading and


1529. Adulteration and misbranding of liquor cresolis compositus and mis-
branding of Good's Dog Soap. U. S. v. James Good, Inc., and John J.
Cram. Pleas of nolo contender. Judgments of guilty. James Good,
Inc. fined $300. John J. Cram placed on probation under suspended
sentence. (I. & F. no. 1864. Sample nos. 4013-B, 4503-B, 4663-B.)
This case covered, among other products, one lot of liquor cresolis com-
positus in which oil other than linseed oil had been substituted for linseed oil,
a constituent prescribed by the United States Pharmacopoeia; also tw6llots
of Good's Dog Soap the labeling of which contained false and misleading
claims regarding its alleged effectiveness in the treatment of mange.
On March 11, 1936, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
the district court an information against James Good, Inc., a Delaware cor-
poration trading at Philadelphia, Pa., and John J. Cram, factory superintendent
of said corporation, alleging shipment by said defendants in violation of the
Insecticide Act of 1910 on or about August 3, 1934, from the State of Pennsyl-
vania into the State of Alabama of a quantity of liquor cresolis compositus
that was adulterated and misbranded; and on or about September 11, 1933 and
March 27, 1934, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of Maryland
and the District of Columbia, of quantities of Good's Dog Soap that was
misbranded.
The liquor cresolis compositus was alleged to be adulterated in that the state-
ment on the label, "Liquor Cresolis Compositus, U. S. P.", represented that its
standard and quality were such that it contained the ingredients specified for
liquor cresolis compositus as prescribed by the United States Pharmacopoeia;
whereas its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality
under which it was sold since it did not contain the ingredients prescribed for
liquor cresolis compositus, but another oil had been substituted in part for
linseed oil. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that an oil other
than linseed oil had been substituted for linseed oil.


Misbrandin
mnent "Liquor


g of the liquor cresolis compositus was alleged in that the state-
Cresolis Compositus, U. S. P." was false and misleading and


-Y


labeled so as to deceive and








1526-1550]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


327


"superficial varieties of mange", "cures mange", "in exceptionally bad c
whereas the article when used as directed, would not act as effective
ment for all varieties of mange indicated by said statements.
The information also charged violations of the Food and Drugs Act re
in notice of judgment No. 26776 published under that act. On January 15
pleas of nolo contender were entered on behalf of the defendants. Judj
of guilty were entered and James Good, Inc., was sentenced to pay a
$300 for violation of both acts, John J. Cram was given a suspended se
and placed on probation for 1 year.
M. L. WILSON. Actina Secretaryt of Aaricul


U-


1530. Adulteration and misbranding of Occo Dry Dip. U. S.
eal Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs.
Sample nos. 52525-B, 54764-B.)


U-


cases ;
treat-


ported
i, 1937,
agents
fine of
*ntence


ture.


v. Oelwvein Chemi-
(I. & F. no. 1891.


This product contained a smaller proportion of sodium fluoride and a larger
proportion of inert ingredients than represented on the label and its composi-
tion differed in other respects from that declared on the label. The labeling
also bore false and misleading claims regarding the alleged effectiveness of
the article for the purposes for which animals are dipped and as a disinfectant
and as a control for lice, mites, and certain other insects.
On April 14, 1937, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against the Oelwein Chemical Co., Inc., Oelwein, Iowa,


alleging shipment
of Iowa into the
an adulterated an
of the Insecticide
The article was
below the professe
labeled, "Sodium
contained sodium
inert ingredients
It was alleged t
ents Naphthalene


by said company on or about October 19,
State of Illinois of quantities of Occo


1935, from the State
Dry Dip, which was


Ld misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning
Act of 1910.
alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
d standard and quality under which it was sold, since it was
Fluoride .65% Inter (sic) ingredients 54.35%"; whereas it
fluoride in a proportion less than 0.65 percent and contained
in a proportion greater than 54.35 percent.
o be misbranded in that the following statements, "Ingredi-
30.00% Tobacco 1325% Sulphur 1.75% Sodium Fluoride


.65% Inter. Ingredients 54.35%", borne on the label, were false and misleading
and by reason of said statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive and
mislead the purchaser, since they represented that it consisted of naphthalene,
tobacco, sulphur, and sodium fluoride as its active ingredients, that it con-
tained not less than 0.65 percent of sodium fluoride and not more than 54.35
percent of inert ingredients; whereas it did not consist of naphthalene, tobacco,
sulphur, and sodium fluoride only as its active ingredients, but did consist of
naphthalene, nicotine, sulphur, phenol, and sodium fluoride as its active in-
gredients, and it contained a smaller proportion of sodium fluoride and a larger
proportion of inert ingredients than declared. It was alleged to be misbranded
further in that the following statements, "Dry Dip Disinfecting Far-


rowing Pens-After the
Dry Dip in the corners


the danger of
Horse Barns
a practice of
to keep down
and more sani
Occo Dry Dip
*f- 4> 1T -1-.__


infection
Cow and
sprinkling
infectious


farrowing pen has been cleaned of dirt, spring
of the pen and over the floor. This will help to
of the new born pigs. Disinfecting C
horse barns need disinfecting from time to time
Occo Dry Dip in the gutters and through the
diseases. Outside toilets can be kept


tary by using Occo Dry Dip as a disinfectant
in the corners of the pen and over the floor.


de Occo
reduce
low and
. Make
bedding
cleaner


* Sprinkle
It will








328


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J.,. .F.


moths from woolens and furs during the summer. *
and other household pests, may be repelled by using 4
cupboards, around sinks and along runways", borne on


pail containing the article, were false and
statements, it was labeled so as to deceive
it was not a dip and would not be effective
are dipped; when used as directed, it would
for farrowing pens, cow barns, horse barns,
in the corners and over the floors of pig pen
on the sows and pigs, and without repeated
effective control for lice that infest cattle,
on lambs; when used as directed, it would


and would not
worms, would n
against ants, co
The informati
tion of the Foo
published under


act as an effective i
)t repel moths, and
ckroaches, and other
on charged that the


d and D
that act.


gs Act,


nsectici
would
househli
article
reported


On April 28, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs for violation of both acts.


IC *


Occo
the


misleading, and
and mislead th
for the purposes


not act as a
and outside
is, it would
treatments
hogs, and h


Ants, cockroaches
Dry Dip freely in
label affixed to the
by reason of said
e purchaser, since
for which animals


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1531. Adulteration and misbranding of Whiz Roach and
minisbranding of Whiz Concentrated Insectifuge. U
lingshead Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $30.
Sample nos. 12190-B, 12191-B.)


Insect Killer,
. S. v. R. M.
(I. & F. no.


and
Hol-
1876.


Whiz Roach and Insect Killer was mislabeled as to its active and inert


ingredie:
Concenti
ness and
On AI
Pennsyl
district
Camden,
cide Act
State of
adultera
fuge tha
The W
strength
it was s
whereas
inert ma


nts and its alleged effect
rated Insectifuge was misl
I as to its alleged nonpois(
)ril 22, 1936, the United
vamnia, acting upon a report
court an information ag
N. J., alleging shipment
of 1910 from Philadelph
California of a quantity
ted and misbranded and
t was misbranded.


7hiz


and p
;old si
it con
tter in


Misbranding
statements, "S
Insect Killer"
reason of said
the purchaser
nronortion of


iveness in the con
labeled as to its al
nous nature.
States attorney fo
t by the Secretary
ainst the R. M.
by said company i
ia, Pa., on or aboi
of Whiz Roach a
of a quantity of V


urity fell below the p
nce it was labeled "
stained sodium fluorid
Sa proportion greater
of the Whiz Roach
odium-Fluoride 70%


e in a proportion less than
than 30 percent.
and Insect Killer was alle


Inert Ma


Sborne on the can labels, we
statements the article was lab
since they represented that it
not less than 70 percent, that


proportion of not more
as an active ingredient
all insects; whereas t
fluoride, more than 30


than 30 pe
and that it
,he article
percent of i


I
recent, that
would act
contained


tter 30%" an
re false and
eled so as to
contained so
it contained
it contained
as an effective


than


70


70 percent and


ged in


that the


d "Whiz Roach and
misleading, and by
deceive and mislead
dium fluoride in the
inert matter in the
sodium fluoride only
-e insecticide against
percent of sodium


A-


nert matter, it contained another i


*


n effective
toilets; wh
not help to
it would n1
orses, and


disinfectant
en sprinkled
control lice
ot act as an
sheep ticks


ens' nests
and cut-
nsecticide


viola-
27239


not keep mites out of h
de against squash bugs
not act as an effective i
iold pests.
was misbranded further
in notice of judgment :


itrol of insects; the Whiz
leged insecticidal effective-


r the Eastern District of
of Agriculture, filed in the
Hollingshead Corporation,
n violation of the Insecti-
it April 26, 1935, into the
nd Insect Killer that was
Vhiz Concentrated Insecti-


Roach and Insect Killer was alleged to be adulterated in that its


rofessed standard and quality under which
Sodium-Fluoride 70% Inert Matter 30%",


ingredient,


<


[


h


r(








1526-1550]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


329


would
insects
insects
On J
and th


not act as an effective insecticide against mo
, or against all similar crawling insects, w
, and would not be nonpoisonous to human
january 15, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered
e court imposed a fine of $30.
M. L. WILSON, Acting


ths and all other household
rould not exterminate said
beings or to animals.
on behalf of the defendant

Secretary of Agriculture.


1532. Misbranding of Sterilan and of water soluble extract of pyrethrum.
U. S. v. American Fluoride Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $60.
(I. & F. no. 1894. Sample nos. 39991-B, 52707-B, 52708-B.)
These products were insecticides that contained inert ingredients not declared
on the labels.
On January 27, 1937, 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 American Fluoride Corporation, New
York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company on or about November 16, 1935,
from the State of New York into the State of Missouri of quantities of Sterilan
and of water soluble extract of pyrethrum; and on or about December 5, 1935,
from the State of New York into the State of Maryland of a quantity of
Sterilan, which products were misbranded insecticides within the meaning of
the Insecticide Act of 1910.


The articles


substan
, in the
in the
centage
were no
e name
having


of inert
fluoride
extract,
and per
articles
were th
articles


were alleged


to be misbranded in


that they


consisted


pa


ices or ingredients, namely, substances other than sodium
Case of the Sterilan; and substances other than pyre
case of the water-soluble extract of pyrethrum, and the
amount of each inert substance or ingredient present
It stated plainly and correctly on the labels; nor, in lieu tl
and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient


insecticidal


properties,


the total


percentages of


rtially
silico-
thrum
name
in the
iereof,
of the


the inert


substances or ingredients so present therein, stated plainly and correctly on
the labels.
On March 15, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
and the court imposed a fine of $60.
M. L. WILSON. Acting Secretary of Aariculture.


1533. Adulteration and misbranding of Dr. Hess Hypochlorite Dairy Rinse.
U. S. v. 18 Cases of Dr. Hess Hypochlorite Dairy Rinse. Default decree
of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1896. Sample nos. 62388-B,
62389-B.)


This product


contained smaller proportions


of calcium


hypochlorite


and of


available
clared on
false and
disinfectai
On Apri


Texas,
court a
chlorite
state c
& Clarn
in viola


act


chlorine, and a larger proportion
the label. The labeling also bore
misleading claims regarding the
nt for churns, milking machines, d
l 17, 1936, the United States atto
ing upon a report by the Secretary


libel praying
Dairy Rinse


omm
k, Inc
tion


of the inert ingredients than de-
among other misrepresentations,
effectiveness of the article as a
airy utensils, etc.
rney for the Northern District of
of Agriculture, filed in the district


seizure and condemnation of 18 cases of Dr. Hess Hypo-
at Dallas, Tex., alleging that it had been shipped in inter-


rce on or about November 7, 1934 and June 25, 1935, by Dr. Hess
., from Ashland, Ohio, and that it was adulterated and misbranded
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


It was alleged to
Calcium Hypochlor
Hess Hypochlorite


be adulterated in that the statements,
ite 45% Inert Ingredient: (not over)
Dairy Rinse is a highly concentrated


Active
55%"
form


Ingredient:
, and "Dr.
of calcium








330


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


It was alleged to be misbranded further in that certain statements borne
on the label and contained in a circular shipped with it were false and mis-
leading since said statements represented that it would be an effective disin-
fectant for milk cans, milk bottles, churns, milking machines, cups, tubes,
and pipes, separators, can lids, measures, and other small utensils, bottle
fillers, cheese presses, hoops, etc., ice cream freezers, the udder and teats of
the cow, hands of the milker, and eggs for hatching; whereas when used
as directed, it would not be an effective disinfectant for said purposes.
On January 12, 1937, 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.

1534. Misbranding of Nursery Volck. U. S. v. 36 Cans and 36 Cans of Nursery
Volck. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. nos.
1904, 1905. Sample nos. 53195-B, 66235-B.)
Sample cans taken from each of the two shipments of this product were


to contain


On or about M
District of Florid
by the Secretary
libels praying sei
Miami, Fla., and
had been shipped
Corporation in va
March 31, 1936, fi
of the Insecticide
The article wa
Gallon", borne on
statement, it was
the cans contained
On July 20 and
of condemnation
destroyed.


less than 1 gallon,


7 '
a
of


18, 1936, the United
nd the District of
Agriculture, filed


[zure and condem
36 cans of the r
in interstate cor
trious shipments
rom Elizabeth, N.
Act of 1910.
s alleged to be
the label, was fa
labeled so as to
less than 1 gallon


nation
product
mmerce
on or


the volume declared


States


attorneys


on the label.


for the Southern


Massachusetts, acting upon reports
in their respective district courts.
of 36 cans of Nursery Volck at
at Boston, Mass., alleging that it
by the California Spray-Chemical
about February 13, March 11, and
I charging misbranding in violation


misbranded in that the statement
lse and misleading and by reason of
deceive and mislead the purchaser
of the article.


"One
said
since


September 2, 1936, no claimant having appeared, judgments
were entered and it was ordered that the product be


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1535. Misbranding of Fumozone.
eontendere. Judgment of
ple nos. 49941-B, 49942-B.)


U. S. v. Shnlman Chemical Co. Plea of nolo
guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1914. Sam-


The labeling of this product contained false and misleading representations
regarding its alleged effectiveness in freshening the air and in keeping certain
objects free from contamination. The article also contained inert ingredi-
ents that were not declared on the label, as required by law.
On August 19, 1936, the United States attorney for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
in the district court an information against the Shulman Chemical Co.. a


corporation, Philadelphia,
about March 22, 1935, fr
New Jersey of a quantity
within the meaning of the
The article was alleged
appearing in the labeling,
part to your surroundings ai
fresh". and (circular) "For


S
- ~. i.~ e ~ -~ 4- -~ 1 n -~ 4~ L~ .. -


Pa.
om
of


w----
, alleging shipment by said company on or
the State of Pennsylvania into the State of
Fumozone, which was a misbranded fungicide


Insecticide Act of 1910.
to be misbranded in that the following
(carton) "The Perfect Air Sweetener *


statements
* Im-


a 'After Rain' Freshness leaves the air *
STelephone-spray Fumozone directly into telephone
^- -^ JE- -, ^ ^,- -_ A. -- -i -TT s-- ^ -.


found








1526-1550]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


331


properties, and
so present then
On January
the defendant
of $25.


Sthe total percentage of the inert substances or ingredients
ein stated plainly and correctly on the label.
15, 1937, a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf of
and the court found the defendant guilty and imposed a fine


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1536. Misbranding of Togstad's Dip and Disinfectant and Togstad's Perfumed
Moth Crystals. U. S. v. Mrs. Vera P. Togstad (The C. I. Togstad Co.).
Plea of guilty. Fine, $10. (I. & F. no. 1923. Sample nos. 62308-B,
68515-B.)


This case involved


false and mislea
germicide, and
skin diseases of
perfumed moth
regarding their
On December


ding claims
bactericide,
animals, ai
crystals the
alleged effe
2, 1986, thl


of Indiana, acting upon a
district court an informat
C. I. Togstad Co., Kokomo,
tion of the Insecticide Act 4
of Indiana into the State
infectant which was a mis
March 11, 1936, from the


quantity c
insecticide.


Togstad's


A dip and disinfectant the labeling of which bore
regarding its alleged effectiveness as a disinfectant,
as a treatment for superficial mange, and many
nd as a repellent of flies that attack livestock; (2)


labeling
activeness
United


report by the


of which bore false and misleading claims
in the control of moths.
States attorney for the Southern District


Secretary


ion against Mrs. Vera
Ind., alleging shipment
of 1910 on or about Febr
of Texas of a quantity
branded insecticide and
State of Indiana into


Moth


Crystals,


which


of Agriculture, filed i:
P. Togstad, trading a:
by said defendant in
uary 14, 1936, from the
of Togstad's Dip and
fungicide; and on or
the State of Kentucky


article


The dip and disinfectant was alleged to be misbranded
statement borne on the can labels, "Guaranteed by The C.
Chemists and Mfg. Pharmacists Kokomo, Indiana Und
of 1910", was misleading in that it represented that the
the requirements of the Insecticide Act of 1910; where
with all requirements of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
misbranded further in that the following statements bor
"Use same strength Togstad's Disinfectant to aid in
vaults This product by destroying germs and b


Sheep
* *


Sea
*


Mange
Diseases


b


*


F
F


Togstad's
sary. *
100 parts ol
away flies",
article was
represented
and would


ment I
horses,
sheep;
the ar
would
ment 1


* *


or .dogs,
* For
'or Sheep
Disinfectant


* In
f water
were f
labeled
that w
destroy


for all varieties
dogs, rabbits, pi
and would act
ticle when used
not destroy all g
for all varieties


ITrnvort Anfrci rahhitc,


For Cattle
rabbits
Hogs *
* *


anti


Horses
other


* Superfici:
s *


i2 AAe3
parts


water.


Stables and Pastures Spray
daily in stables during warmn
alse and misleading and by r
so as to deceive and mislea
'hen used as directed, it woi
all germs and bacteria; wo


V I I if*


superficial
and hogs,


was


n the
s the
viola-
State
Dis-
about
of a


misbranded


in that the following
I I. Togstad Company,
er the Insecticide Act
article complied with
as it did not comply
It was alleged to be
ne on the can labels,
disinfecting *
bacteria For


* Mange
nf^c *E


Superficial
Superficial


al Mange and Many Skin
Apply a solution of one part
Repeat as often as neces-
Togstad's Disinfectant with
Weather to assist in keeping
eason of said statements, the
d the purchaser in that they


uld
uld


mange and
and for all


a repellent of flies
directed, would not
s and bacteria; wou
superficial mange,
anti hnirrfo an vi #nr't a


for many
varieties of


that attack li
aid in disinf
ld not act as
or for many
11 ,,nr f^/-n-c\ n#-


disinfecting
an effective


vaults
treat-


skin diseases of
scabs that infest
livestock; whereas
ecting vaults and
an effective treat-
skin diseases of
cm/noho+ha lli n 4 od-SiPc+


lK








332


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J.T., I. F.


* Use these crystals where moths are apt to strike", 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
when used as directed, it would keep under all conditions moths away from
closets or rugs, and would act as an effective control against moths infesting
furniture and the several other articles named on the label; whereas the article
when used as directed, would not keep under all conditions moths away from


closets and rugs
ing furniture or
Togstad's Dip
tion of the Food
of judgment no.
no. 59 published


; it would not act as an effective control against moths infest-
the several other articles named on the label.
and Disinfectant also was charged to be misbranded in viola-
and Drugs Act and the Caustic Poison Act, reported in notice
27228 published under the former act, and notice of judgment
under the latter act.


On January 9, 1937, the defendant entered a
imposed a fine of $10 on all charges.
M. L. WILSON, Act


plea


of guilty


ing Secretary of


the court


Agriculture.


1537. Alleged adulteration and nisbranding of
U. S. v. Ansbacher-Hlagerstowvn Chemical
fore a jury. Verdict of not guilty. (I.
62729-B.)
Samples of this product were found to contain mi
On October 20, 1936, the United States attorney f<
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricultur
an information against the Ansbacher-Hagerstown
ing at Hagerstown, Md., alleging shipment by said
12, 1936, from the State of Maryland into the Sta
of drums of Ansbacher's Tar Emulsion, and charge
adulterated and misbranded insecticide within the
Act of 1910.
It was alleged to be adulterated in that the stat<


straight
83% In
that its
emulsio
portion
proporti
purity f
since it


~Ta


r Oil Emulsion


* *


Active


ert Ingredients 17% By volume",
standard and quality were such
n, that it contained an active ingr
of not less than 83 percent by
ion of not more than 17 percent
:ell below the professed standard
did not consist of a straight tar


Ansbacher's Tar Emulsion.
Corporation. Case tried be-
& F. no. 1929. Sample no.

neral oil.
or the District of Maryland,
e, filed in the district court
Chemical Corporation, trad-
company on or about March
te of Virginia of a number
Ing that the article was an
meaning of the Insecticide


~ments,


"Tar


Emulsion is a


Ingredients Coal Tar Creosote Oil


borne on the drum label, represented
that it consisted of a straight tar-oil
edient, coal-tar creosote oil, in the pro-
volume, and inert ingredients in the
by volume; whereas its strength and
and quality under which it was sold
-oil emulsion but consisted in part of


mineral oil; it did not consist of coal-tar creosote oil in the proportion of 83
percent by volume, but contained a lesser percentage thereof and it contained
inert ingredients in a proportion of more than 17 percent.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted state-
ments, borne on the drum label, were false and misleading and by reason of
said statements, it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser


since they
that it con
of not less
of not mot
emulsion b
volume of


present
gained a
han 83


ted that
n active
percent


than 17 percent


the article
Ingredient,
by volume,


whereas


consisted of a straight tai
coal-tar creosote oil, in t
and inert ingredients in
it did not consist of a s


r-oi
:he
the
tra


1l emulsion,
proportion
proportion
ight tar-oil


ut consisted in part of mineral oil, it did not contain 83 percent by
coal-tar creosote oil but did contain a lesser percentage, and it


contained more than 17 percent of inert ingredients.
On December 14, 1936, a plea of not guilty was


entered on behalf of the


r(
t
t
*e







1526-1550]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


333


quantity of Garden Nicotine Tendust, which was an adulterated and mis-
branded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Active
Ingredient By Wt. Nicotine Alkaloid 3.6% Inert Ingredients 96.4%",


borne on the package lab
such that it contained nic
percent, and that it contain
than 96.4 percent; where
than 3.6 percent, and inert
It was alleged to be mi,
package, were false and
article was labeled so as to
an active ingredient, nam


percent,


it contained


el, represented that its standard and
otine alkaloid in the proportion of not
ined inert ingredients in the proportion


s it contained nicotine alkaloid in a pr
ingredients in a proportion greater than
sbranded in that the above statements,
misleading and by reason of said sta


quality v
less than
of not m
portion
96.4 perc
borne on
tements,


iere
3.6
lore
less
ent.
the
the


deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained
ely, nicotine alkaloid, in a proportion less than 3.6
inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 96.4


percent.
On January 16, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
and the court imposed a fine of $200.
M. L. WILSON. Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1539. Adulteration and misbranding of Extermite Ant-Termite Powder. U. S.
v. John F. Roessler (J. F. Roessler & Son). Plea of nolo contender.
Fine, $10 and costs. (I. & F. no. 1932. Sample no. 55434-B.)
This product would be injurious to certain vegetation when used as directed;
its labeling bore, among other misrepresentations, false and misleading claims
regarding its effectiveness in the control of ants, termites, chicken lice, and
fleas on animals. The label also failed to bear a correct statement of the
active and inert ingredients.
On November 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 John F. Roessler, trading as J. F. Roessler
& Son, South Bend, Ind., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about
July 31, 1935, from the State of Indiana into the State of Michigan of a
quantity of Extermite Ant-Termite Powder, which was an adulterated and
misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it was intended for use
on vegetation and when used thereon as directed, it would be injurious to
such vegetation.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements, borne on the


package label, "Extermite Ant-Termite Powder Guaranteed
Termites Extermite kills termites (Wood Ants)
trained by using a blow gun. Blow powder freely where
quent. Guaranteed to kill *, chicken lice
lice-Sprinkle on nests, cracks, crevices and roosts. *
kill Lice on Plants .Rose beetles, etc.
* Will not hurt grass and shrubbery. Bugs, Beetles,
Plants and Shrubbery-Sprinkle freely on shrubbery, plants.
use Fleas On Animals-Sprinkle and, rub into fur of ani]
Others Fail. Passed and Approved Under Pure Food and
Poisonous", were false and misleading and by reason of sai
article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purch
represented that when used as directed, it would extermim
mites; would kill termites and chicken lice, and that it cou
on grass and the foliage of plants; that by a single applica
Ja nft, L -1 LI* t Ja *. ,-, 1 ~. 1 L *! L


V
*


to kill *
Best results ob-
er termites fre-
S* Chicken
Guaranteed to
and insect eggs
Spiders, Lice on
* Safe to


mal.
Dru


Id
ase
ate
Id
tio:


Kills
Act.


When
Non-


statements
r in that t
ants and
be safely u
n it would
---- ^ -------------------


the
hey
ter-
ised
act
__ ..


^ll







334


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J.. I. F.


destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the name and the percentage amounts of
each inert substance or ingredient present were not stated plainly and cor-
rectly on the package label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and the per-
centage amount of each and every substance or ingredient of the article having
insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert substances or
ingredients so present therein stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On March 6, 1937, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contender and the
court imposed a fine of $10 and costs.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1540. Misbranding of Arcady Roost Paint. U. S. v. Arcady
Plea of guilty. Fine, $25 and costs. (I. & F. no.
63129-B.)
The labeling of this product contained misrepresentation
effectiveness as an insecticide against mites, and failed to
ingredients present in the article.
On October 30, 1936, the United States attorney for the ]
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul
district court an information against the Arcady Laboratories,
alleging shipment by said company on or about August 23,
December 20, 1935, from the State of Illinois into the State
a quantity of Arcady Roost Paint, which was a misbranded
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the st


roost
white
Roost
treat


thoroughly wiping off all dirt
wash. Just paint the top sides
Paint, using about one ounce t
over three hundred feet of roost.


at
ol
0


Laboratories, Inc.
1936. Sample no.
ns regarding its
declare the inert


Northern District
Iture, filed in the
Inc., Chicago, Ill.,
October 16, and
of Minnesota of
insecticide within


.atements,


"Clean


Nd dust and scraping off all lime or
f roosts and cross arms with Arcady
fifteen feet of roosts. One pint will
For wire bottom coops paint the wire


with Arcady Roost Paint. Arcady Roost Paint is sufficiently potent so that
one application will last four or five days. We therefore recom-
mend a second application a week later to completely free birds of *
mites", borne on the can labels, were false and misleading, and by reason of
said statements, it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, in that
they represented that the article when used as directed, would act as an effec-
tive insecticide against mites; whereas when used as directed, it would not act
as an effective insecticide against mites.
It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially of inert
substances, namely, water and soap, and the name and percentage amounts of
said inert substances or ingredients were not stated plainly and correctly on
the label affixed to the cans containing the article; 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 s
or ingredients so present therein, stated plainly and correctly on the
The information charged that the product also was misbranded in
of the Food and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment no. 26974
under that act.
On December 22, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the
and the court imposed a fine of $25 for violation of both acts.


substances
label.
violation
published

defendant


M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1541. Adulteration and misbranding of calcium arsenate. IT. S. v. The J. W.
Woolfolk Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (I. & F. no. 1937.
Sample no. 63743-B.)
Thiq nrnTnot PAnntainpd onloiln nruPanftA nit onmbhinsii arqpnip in nrnnrtHnil.a







1526-1550]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


335


Arsenic, Expressed as
contained less than 69
arsenate; it contained
proportion l8ss than 40
tion greater than 30.78
It was alleged to be
on the bags containing


Arsenic Pentoxide, Not less than 40.00%; ,
.22 percent of calcium arsenate expressed as
combined arsenic, expressed as arsenic pento
percent, and it contained inert ingredients in
percent.
misbranded in that the above-quoted statem4
g it were false and misleading, and by reasc


statements, it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purc
contained calcium arsenate, expressed as tricalcium arsenate, ii
less than 69.22 percent; it contained combined arsenic, express
pentoxide, in a proportion less than 40 percent, and it contained in
in a proportion greater than 39.78 percent. It was alleged to
further in that it contained arsenic, and the total amount of a
and the amount of arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as
metallic arsenic, were not stated on the label.
On May 6, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the
the court imposed a fine of $100.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of


whereas it
tricalcium
xide, in a
a propor-

ents borne
)n of said


*haser, since it
n a proportion
sed as arsenic
ert ingredients
be misbranded
rsenic present,
percentum of


defendant and


Agriculture.


1542. Misbranding of Watkins Louse Killer.
Plea of nolo contender. Fine, $25.
55413-B.)


U. S.
(I.


v. The J. R.
& F. no. 1939.


Watkins Co,
Sample no,


This product was misbranded because
labeling regarding its alleged effectivene
moths, and certain other insects.
On January 26, 1937, the United States
acting upon a report by the Secretary of
an information against the J. R. Watkins
shipment by said company on or about
Minnesota into the State of Illinois of


of false and misleading claims in the
ss in the control of lice, fleas, mites,

attorney for the District of Minnesota,
Agriculture, filed in the district court
Co., trading at Winona, Minn., alleging
February 15, 1936, from the State of
a quantity of Watkins Louse Killer,


which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements
borne on the can labels, "Used for killing certain insects, lice, fleas and certain
other forms of vermin on poultry, horses, cattle, hogs, dogs and sheep. *
Progressive farmers and poultry raisers know they cannot make livestock and
poultry thrive when blood-sucking lice and certain other forms of parasites sap
the animal's vitality. Watkins Louse Killer not only rids your animals of these
vermin, but when sprinkled about the walls, floors, barns, shed, roosts and
coops, destroys their breeding places. Millions of dollars are lost by farmers,
poultry raisers and stock raisers by depredations of certain species of lice, and
mites on their sheep, cattle, horses, hogs and poultry. Watkins Louse Killer
is an old and tried preparation for the killing of certain species of these vermin.
The money spent for it means dollars saved in the greater efficiency of your
farm animals. Can also be used on all plants to kill certain species of bugs,
worms and slugs. For Certain Bugs and Lice on Plants, Vines, and
Rose Bushes. Apply lightly when plants are dry. Also sprinkle on ground
beneath plants. Doing so keeps certain insects away. Repels moths.
* Watkins Louse Killer also repels moths. For this purpose, pack clothes
into tight box lined with paper in which Watkins Louse Killer has been
sprinkled", were false and misleading and by reason of said statements, it was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser since they represented that
when used as directed, it would act as an effective insecticide against all varie-


F








336


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


1543. Adulteration and misbranding of unbolted pyrethrum bed bug powder
and misbranding of Fly Hootch. U. S. v. Harvey H. Plowfleld (Little
Brown Jug). Plea of guilty. Sentence suspended and defendant placed
on probation for 2 years. (I. & F. no. 1947. Sample ios. 33404-B,
33405-B.)
This case involved two insecticides: (1) Fly Hootch, the labeling of which
bore false and misleading claims regarding its alleged effectiveness in the con-
trol of flies and moths and a false and misleading representation that it was
nonpoisonous; and (2) a product represented to be a commercial grade of
pyrethrum, but which consisted of pyrethrum stems, and which was entirely
inert and failed to bear on the label a statement showing the inert ingredient
present.
On January 13, 1937, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against Harvey H. Plowfield, trading as the Little
Brown Jug, County of Berks, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendant in viola-
tion of the Insecticide Act of 1910, on or about March 17, 1936, from the State
of Pennsylvania into the State of Michigan of a quantity of unbolted pyrethrum
bed bug powder which was adulterated and misbranded, and of a quantity of
Fly Hootch which was misbranded.
The beg bug powder was alleged to be adulterated in that it was represented
to be unbolted pyrethrum; whereas it was not, but another substance, namely,
pyrethrum stems, had been substituted for unbolted pyrethrum. It was alleged
to be misbranded in that the statement "Unbolted Pyrethrum Bed Bug Powder"
borne on the package label, was false and misleading, and by reason of said
statement it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since said


statements
pyrethrum
whereas it
of pyrethr
bed bugs.
pletely of
name and
and correc


Represented that
and that it would
did not consist of
um stems only, and
It was alleged to
an inert substance
percentage amount
tly on the package


the article consisted of a commercial grade of
act as an effective insecticide against bed bugs;
a commercial grade of pyrethrum but did consist
it would not act as an effective insecticide against
be misbranded further in that it consisted corn-
or ingredient, namely, pyrethrum sterns, and the
t of the inert substance were not stated plainly
label.


Hootch


was alleged


to be misbranded


in that


the following


state-


ments, "Fly Hootch Use This Insecticide For Killing Flies *
For Flies Spray Freely About The Room In All Directions. Windows
And Doors Must Be Left Closed For About Five Minutes. To kill
moths, spray in closets or chests. 'Fly Hootch' sprayed lightly will not stain.
To protect all articles as well as closets and chests, spray every three or four
weeks. Non-Poisonous", borne on the can label, were false and mis-
leading, and by reason of said statements the article was labeled so as to
deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they represented that when used as
directed, it would act as an effective insecticide against flies and moths and
that it was nonpoisonous; whereas when used as directed, it would not act as
an effective insecticide against flies and moths and it was not nonpoisonous.
On March 22, 1937, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court
suspended sentence and placed the defendant on probation for 2 years.
M. L.WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1544. Misbranding of Sentrocide. U. S. v. Sentry Products Co., Inc.
nolo eontendere. Fine, $5. (I. & F. no. 1948. Sample no. 43619-
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations


Plea of
-B.)
regard-









1526-1550]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


337


sented that when used as directed, it would act as an effective insecticide against
flies and mosquitoes and the larvae of ants and against moths, and that it would
exterminate moths in upholstered furniture; whereas when used as directed, it
would not be effective for said purposes.
On March 23, 1937, a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf of the
defendant, and the court imposed a fine of $5.
M. L.WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1545. Misbranding of Patterson's Cedarix
and St. Elmo Bateman (Patterson
$125. (I. & F. no. 1949. Sample no.
The labeling of this product bore false
effectiveness in the control of moths.
On December 4, 1936, the United States


of California, acting upon a report b
district court an information against
copartners, trading as Patterson-Ba


ment by said defendants o:
into the State of Illinois
branded insecticide within
The article was alleged
Per Garment, Patterson's
trunks, drawers, blankets,
label affixed to the tubes
reason of said statements,


n or about
of a quan
the mean


Tubes. U. S. v. Elva 11. Patterson
-Bateman). Pleas of guilty. Fines,
57119-B.)
and misleading claims regarding its


attorney for


y the Secretary of Agricultu
Elva M. Patterson and St. ]
teman, Los Angeles, Calif.,
May 13, 1936, from the Stat
tity of Patterson's Cedarix
ng of the Insecticide Act of


to be misbranded in


Cedarix Tubes, For
furs, pianos and overst
containing it, were f
it was labeled so as toc


that the state


Southern District


ire, filed in the
Elmo Bateman,


e
c3


repelling moths
muffed furniture"


alse
de(


chaser in that they represented that the article whe
repel moths and would protect blankets, furs, pianos,
from moth damage; whereas when used as directed,


alleging
of Calif
Tubes, a
1910.
nts, "Use
from c
, borne o


ship-
ornia
mis-


One
hests,
n the


Sand misleading, and by
ceive and mislead the pur-
n used as directed, would
and overstuffed furniture
it would not repel moths


and would not protect blankets, furs, pianos, and overstuffed furniture from
moth damage.
On December 21, 1936, the defendants each entered a plea of guilty and the
court imposed a fine of $100 on St. Elmo Bateman, and $25 on Elva M. Patterson.


M. L.


WILSON, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1546. Adulteration and misbranding of Woleott Brand Chlorinated Lime. U. S.
v. Sunlight Chemical Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F.
no. 1950. Sample no. 6954-C.)
This product contained a smaller proportion of available chlorine and a larger
proportion of inert ingredients than declared on the label. It also was labeled
with false and misleading representations regarding its alleged effectiveness
as a deodorant, germicide, disinfectant, and control for flies.
On December 31, 1936, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode
Island, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
trict court an information against the Sunlight Chemical Corporation, Phillips-
dale, R. I., alleging shipment by said company on or about May 25 and June 3,
1936, from the State of Rhode Island into the State of Maine of a quantity
of Wolcott Brand Chlorinated Lime, which was an adulterated and mis-
branded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act


of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated
below the professed standard and quality un
labeled "Available Chlorine not less than
than 70%;" whereas it contained available


in that its st
der which it
30%, inert
chlorine in


rength and purity fell
was sold, since it was
ingredients not more
i. proportion less than








338


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I. F


Wolcott
oughly
into an
and by
mislead
less tha
than 70
piles of
matter


chlorinated lime to a
to mash the lumps if
old sprinkling can and
reason of said stateme
the purchaser, since


L gallon of water will be sufficient.
there are any. Allow to settle and
sprinkle thoroughly", were false and
nts, the article was labeled so as to
it contained available chlorine in a


Stir thor-
then pour
misleading,
receive and
proportion


in 30 percent, it contained inert ingredients in a proportion greater
percent; when used as directed, it would not prevent outdoor vaults,
stable manure, garbage receptacles, or decomposed animal or vegetable
of all kinds from attracting flies, nor would it prevent their breeding


in such places. It would not destroy t
present in outdoor vaults, piles of stable
composing animal or vegetable matter of
water closets, cesspools, drains, cellars,
closets, outdoor vaults, garbage receptac
and vegetable matter of all sorts; and it


he germs
manure,
all kinds
etc.; it
les, stable
would n


ordinary purposes when sprinkled according to th
On January 5, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered
and the court imposed a fine of $50.
M. L. WILSON, Acting


f*9^


s of disease that might be
garbage receptacles, or de-
, it would not purify vaults,.
would not disinfect indoor
e manure, decaying animal
tot act as a disinfectant for
e directions on the label.
L on behalf of the defendant


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1547. Misbranding of Chloraide. U. S. v. Farmaide Products Co. Plea of nolo
contender. Fine, $75. (I. & F. no. 1955. Sample no. 49414-B.)
This product was falsely represented to be nonpoisonous and safe; and it&
label bore false and misleading claims regarding its potency as compared
with carbolic acid, and its alleged effectiveness as a disinfectant, germicide,


deodorant, and
ingredients pre,
On February
acting upon a r
an information
Lincoln, Nebr.,


from the
Chloraide,
Insecticide
The artic
appearing
Etc.-Use
be purified
do not wip
oughly wit]
frequently
(circular)
Chloraide i
Chloraide i
it is nonpo
Chloraide i
a sterilizer
farms and
disinfectant
For disinf(


sterilize
sent.
2, 1937,
report by
against
alleging


and failed


to bear


a statement indicating the inert


the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska,
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
the Farmaide Products Co., a corporation, trading at
shipment by said company on or about June 19, 1936,


of Nebra;
ch was a
of 1910.
as alleged
hie labeling,
teaspoonful


)y rinsing in


ska into the
misbranded


SState of
fungicide


Missouri
within the


of a quantity
meaning of


to be misbranded in that the following statements,
(bottle) "For Disinfecting Instruments, Utensils,
to a pint of water. Nipples and Bottles-Should


a solution,


* Operating Rooms,
vo tablespoonfuls Chloraide


one tablespoonful


Sick Rooms
to a gallon


nsed in this solution for the woodwork,
The Safe Antiseptic & Deodorant *


I

4


w
*


the most effective germicide known to x
twelve time as potent as carbolic acid
onous and absolutely safe to have in the


to a


quart of


-Wash t
of water
calls and f
* What
medical s
in germ
home or


he floo
. Use
.urnitu]
Chlor
science.
killing
on th


water-
rs thor-
a cloth
re", and
aide Is.
While
power,
e farm.


s instant death to disease germs, an infallible destroyer of odors,
, disinfectant and cleanser. It is used in hospitals, homes, on
ranches and wherever a positive, powerful and effective germicidal
t and deodorizer is required. As a sterilizer *
acting instruments, utensils, Etc.-Use one tablespoonful to each


quart of water and immerse for five minutes.


* Nipples


Disinfect by immersing for two minutes in a solution of one


and bottles-
tablespoonful


r,


:ate
vhi4
Lct
e w
i tl
e


t

A
1h
in
on
b
e.
hi
ri

.s
's
is


I


!








1526-1550]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


339


diluted and can do no harm to human beings, animals or
does to bacteria germs is plenty. It is twelve times as pot
power as carbolic acid and it is one of the most effective
known to medical science. Germ Destroyer *
spoonfuls of Chloraide in a gallon of water makes an eff
solution, and it is only in extreme cases that you have to mn
than that. Non-poisonous Contains no poison.
around", (shipping container) "Germ Destroyer", were fal
and by reason of said statements, the article was labeled so
mislead purchasers, since when used as directed, it could no1
to act as a disinfectant for instruments, utensils, etc., nip
operating rooms or sick rooms; it was not nonpoisonous
most effective germicide known; it was not twelve times as
acid in germ-killing power under all conditions; it was n


it would not cause in
destroyer of odors; it
such disinfectant is r
cans and cream cans,
milking machines, refr
conduits, floors, walls
spoonful to each gallo
the uses specified in t
was not one of the mn


not absolutely


Lstant death to disease germs; it
was not a sterilizer and would not


ba
be


birds, but what it
ent in germ-killing
germicidal agents
* Two table-
ective sterilization
ake it any stronger
Is safe to have
se and misleading
Sas to deceive and
t be depended upon
ples or bottles, in
; it was not the
potent as carbolic
ot absolutely safe;
s not an infallible
effective wherever


required; it could not be relied upon to disinfect milk
pails, ice cream cans, milk or cream bottles, separators,


igerators, churns, tank
or woodwork when
n of water; it was ni
:he booklet and the c:
Lost effective germicid


would not


destroy


:s, vats, cheese molds, pumps, pipes,
used at the dilution of one table-
ot the most effective germicide for
circular and on the bottle label; it
al agents for all purposes; it was
all germs; it would not make an


effective sterilization solution when used in the proportion of two tablespoon-
fuls of the product to each gallon of water.
The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted par-
tially of inert substances or ingredients, and the name and percentage amount
of each inert substance or ingredient present were not stated plainly and
correctly on the bottle label or on the carton containing the bottle; nor, in
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 substances or ingredients present stated plainly
and correctly on said bottle labels or cartons.
The information charged that it was misbranded further in violation of
the Food and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment no. 27231 published
under that act. On March 13, 1937, a plea of nolo contender was entered
on behalf of the defendant, and the court imposed a fine of $75 for violation of
both acts.


M. L.


WILsoN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1548. Misbranding of Germalene Crystals and Germalene Blockettes. U. S. v.
Germalene Chemical Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. no.
1962. Sample nos. 73896-B, 73897-B.)
The label on the Germalene Crystals bore false and misleading claims
regarding its efficacy as an insecticide and deodorant. The label on the Germa-
lene Blockettes bore false and misleading claims regarding their efficacy in
preventing moths.
On January 30, 1937, 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 Germalene Chemical Co., Inc., trading
at Houston, Tex. An amended information was filed on March 6, 1937, and
a second one on March 25, 1937. The defendant company was charged with


\








340


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I. F.


to the packages containing the
of said statements the article
purchaser since when used as
cide against "insects, roaches,
crystals of it around the work
and then, it would not prevent


article, were false and misleading and by reason


was labeled so
directed, it woul
and vermin"
ng mechanism (
damage by mot


as to deceive


d not
when
)f org
hs to


mislead


act as an effective insecti-
used by sprinkling a few
ans and player pianos now
felt parts; and it was not


a powerful deodorant, it would not repel all insects, and it wai
for use in lavatories, clothes closets, theaters, and furniture.
The Germalene Blockettes were alleged to be misbranded in


ments, "Germalene Blo
kets, upholstered furni
the label affixed to eac
reason of said statement
the purchaser since the
effective in preventing
be effective in preventhi
On March 25, 1937, a
and the court imposed


kettes For use in urinals
ture, etc., For
lh of the packages, were
its the article was labeled
y represented that when
moths; whereas when u
ig moths.
plea of guilty was entered
a fine of $50.


M. L.


1549.

The
effect'
of the


Misbranding of Paramount
Chemical Co. Plea of nolo
Sample no. 13312-C.)
label of this product bore
veness as a sterilizer and di
inert ingredients present.


, cloth
Moth
false
so as
used a
sed as


s not unexcelled

that the state-


es closets, woolen blan-
prevention", borne on
and misleading and by
to deceive and mislead
Ls directed, it would be
directed, it would not


d on behalf of the defendant


WILSON, Acting Secretary of
Versatile Sterilizer. U. S.
i contender. Fine, $25. (I


false and
sinfectant


misleading
and failed


claims
to beai


Agriculture.
v. Paramount
& F. no. 1966.

regarding its
r a statement


of Ge
distri4
tion,
1936,
tity (
mean


gia, act
court a
)lumbus
om the
Param
r of the


The article


* *


1937


the United


ing upon a rei
n information
, Ga.. alleging
State of Geor
ount Versatile
Insecticide Ac


alleged


*- sterilizes


States


)ort by the
against the
shipment b:
gia into the
Sterilizer,
t of 1910.


to be misbranded


* Paramount


attorney


Mid(


Secretary of Agriculture,
Paramount Chemical Co.,
y said company on or abo
State of South Carolina
a misbranded fungicide


in that th
Sterilizer


ie statement
is an id


lie District
filed in the
a corpora-
ut July 29,
of a quan-
within the

its, "Steril-
eal cleaner


and sterilizer. For genera]
and the like, we recommend
Sterilizer per gallon of w:
solution Wash a
ing boards, out of water p
with a strong solution o
leather, and damp wood; s
tion of any wood work with
tects Health", borne on th<
misleading and the article
mislead the purchaser since(
act as a sterilizer; that it
and disinfect bath tul)bs, toi
and stools in dressing roon
steps, rubber mats, etc., f
when used as directed, a:
directed, it would not act
would not sterilize and di


Sste
d the
water.
I1 flo
ortio:
f Pa
o th
Swhi
e lab


rilizing of bath tubs, I
Suse of four to six te
This will result in
ors, benches and stool
ns of ladders or steps


r
it
c
e
Ce


a

h
1


was
e the s
was a
let sea
is, divi


ng boards,


toilet
aspo4
a th
s in
, rub


seats
onfuls
ree to
dress
ber m


out of water port


ungous growths on cloth
nd would protect health
as a sterilizer and was
sinfect the places and t


, leather, and
1; whereas w
not an ideal
hings indicate


, wash ba
of Param
five per
ng rooms,
ats, etc., (
ows on c


sins,
ount
cent
div-
laily
loth,


aid to steriliza-
Pro-
were false and
to deceive and
e article would
would sterilize
floors, benches,
ons of ladders,


damp wo
hen used
sterilizer;
I and wou


od
as
it
ild


On February


was


mount Sterilizer. Fungus g
special attention should be p;
the feet may come in contact
affixed to each of the cans,
labeled and branded so as
statements represented that th
n ideal sterilizer, and that it
ts, wash basins and the like,


d


*-1


. *


l







a-nn.d-~n,
IQZO-10i3UJ


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


341


1550. Adulteration and
Liquid. U. S. v.
nolo eontendere.
66329-B.)


misbranding of Merrimack Chlorine Disinfectant
Walter H. Huggins (James Huggins & Son). Plea of
Fine, $10. (I. & F. no. 1968. Sample nos. 697o-C,


This product contained a smaller percentage of the active ingredient and


larger percentage of inert ingredients
used as directed, would not be an effec
On February 23, 1937, the United Sta
chusetts, acting upon a report by the


district court
Huggins & So
about March
State of New
Liquid, which
of the Insectic
The article


gredient,
jug label,
sodium h
contained
than 95
standard
percent o
It was
Ingredier


an
n al
26 t
HEa
was
ide
was


L
I
I


information against
Maiden, Mass., allege
nd July 2, 1936, froi
mpshire of quantitie


than declared on the label, and when
tive disinfectant and sterilizer.
tes attorney for the District of Massta-
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
Walter H. Huggins, trading as James
;ing shipment by said defendant on or
m the State of Massachusetts into the
s of Merrimack Chlorine Disinfectant


an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the meaning
Act of 1910.
alleged to be adulterated in that the statements "Active In-


Sodium Hypochlorite 5% Inert Ingredients
Represented that its standard and quality were
Lypochlorite in the proportion of not less than
I an inert ingredient or ingredients in the pi
percent; whereas its strength and purity fel
and quality under which it was sold since it
f hypochlorite and contained more than 95 perce
alleged to be misbranded in that the follow
its. Sodium Hynochlorite 5% Inert Ingredien


jug labels, were false
was labeled so as to
sodium hypochlorite in


and mislead
deceive and
a proportio


ding and
mislead
n less tha


1


ingredients in a proportion greater than


t

I
I
I


i
by reason <
the purchase
S5 percent
percent. TI


95%", 1
such tha
5 percent
portion
below 1
conta ine


rne
it co
and
)f no
ie pr
less


on t
ltain4
that
t mo
ofess<
than


of inert ingredients.
statements "Active
i5%", borne on the
said statements, it
since it contained
d it contained inert
article was alleged


to be misbranded further in that the statements
shipments) "Chlorine Disinfectant Liquid *


Dairy Utensils-Rinse in
and washing soda. Just


cold
before


three ounces to four gallons
One Ounce to each gallon of
vessels", (additional statement
Equipment-First clean with
washing powder. Just before


holding
disinf


g vat a
ctant t


exterior surf
) gallons of


water
e usin


water
water


on Ju
id wa
Mg sp
s of <
ter",


(on the jug
Directions f


to remove solids. Cleans
; rinse inside surfaces an
* Poultry Drinking
in drinking fonts, two ou


g label


then


one shipment


wash


terror
with
er ac


with


surfaces
solution
company


war


label
or Us
e witi
d cov
Wat
Lnces ]
"Mill
m wa


of receiving


four
one


in both
e Farm
Sweater
er with
er-Use
in open
k Plant
ter and
ig tank,


ounces o
shipment


"Dairy Use one tablespoonful to one gallon water for washing and ri
Poultry To disinfect house and utensils use eight tablespoonfuls to one
water. Treat drinking water with one tablespoon to ten gallons water. I
bold As a sterilizing agent, disinfectant and deodorant in the home us
tablespoonful to one gallon water", were false and misleading and by
of the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and m
the purchaser, since they represented that when used as directed, it
act as an effective disinfectant for farm dairy utensils; that it could be
upon to keep drinking water continuously free from infection; that it
disinfect poultry houses and utensils; that it would act as a sterilizing
and would disinfect when used in the home; whereas when used as dir
it would not act as an effective disinfectant for farm dairy utensils;
not be relied upon to keep drinking water continuously free from infe
would not disinfect poultry houses and utensils: and would not act


using.
gallon
House-
;e one
reason
mislead
would
relied
would
agent
ected,
could
action;
as a
























INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1526-1550


Ansbacher's Tar Emulsion:
Ansbacher-Hagerstown
cal Corp----.--.
Arcady Roost Paint:
Arcady Laboratories, In


Chemi-

C -..---


Calcium arsenate:
Woolfolk, J. W., Co., Inc...-- -
Chloraide:
Farmaide Products Co .
Chlorinated lime:
Sunlight Chemical Corpora-
tion ----------.-----
Chlorine disinfectant:
Huggins, James, & Son ....
Concentrated lime sulphur solution:
Mechlinz Bros. Chemical Co._
Extermite Ant-Termite Powder :
Roessler, J. F--- ...- .--
Roessler, J. F., & Son ...
Fly Hootch :
Little Brown Jug----- ...
Plowfield, H. H ....... -
Fumozone:
Shulman Chemical Co ....
Garden Nicotine Tendust:
California Spray-Chemical Cor-
poration .-.-- --- ---
Germalone Blockettes:
Crystals
Germalene Chemical Co., Inc.
Good's Dog Soap:
Cram, J. J _. -..
Good, James, Ine-- --- --
Hess, Dr., Hypochblorite Dairy Rinse:
Hess, Dr., & Clark, Inc....-..--
Jol:
American Progress Co., Inc. --
Lime sulphur solution, concentrated:
Mechling Bros. Chemical Co..
Liquor cresolis compositus:
Cram, J. J ......- --. ---
Good, James, Inc ..........--


N.J no.


1537
1540
1541
1547

1546
1550
1528
1539
15309
1543
1543
1535

1538

1548
1529
1529

1533
1527
1528
1529
1529


Merrimack Chlorine Disinfectant N
Liquid:
Huggins, James, & Son. ....
Huggins, W. H-- .. -
Nursery Volck:
California S n r a v-Chemical


S. -- -


Corporation. -....- -
Occo Dry Dip:
Oelwein Chemical Co., Inc....
Oil emulsion
Marshall Products, Inc --
Paramount Versatile Sterilizer
Paramount Chemical Co...---
Patterson's Cedarix Tubes:
Bateman, St. Elmo .........
Patterson-Bateman ...
Patterson, E. M--- --
Pyrethrum, unbolted, bed bug powder:
Little Brown Jug .....
Plowfield, H. H -------------
water-soluble extract:
American Fluoride Corpora-


tion .
Security Brand Calcium Arsenate
Woolfolk, J. W., Co., Inc. -- -
Scntrocide:
Sentry Products Co., Inc--... -


Sterilan
American


Fluoride


Corporal


L-


tion .---------------------
Togstad's Dip and Disinfectant:
Perfumed Moth Crystals:
Togstad, C. I., Co-------
Tostad, V. P?..--- --------
Watkins Louse Killer:
Watkins, J. R., Co- ---------
Whiz Concentrated Insectifuge:
Roach and Insect Killer:
Hollingshead, R. M., Corpora-


tion -.-..-----.---
Wolcott Brand Chlorinated Lime:
Sunlight Chemical Corpora-
tion ,. ..................-.


.J. no.
1550
1550

1534
1530
1526
1549
1545
1545
1545
1543
1543

1532
1541
1544

1532

1536
1536
1586
1542


1531

1546


*


-1--




/















i ^
/





























IM


I'









| /






<






































































-
























>






















*i







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
III IHA2i II 0I8 4lIi
3 1262 08582 4901