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:
AA00008549:00026

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text


..!.i:~ ~
*lH. S
~ a
2
4..
.4*. 4-
I.rj> p ~
HF .... K
I-... .
.wrkElA 4....
A ..
,..
.1 AIW"~
a.
.I.
* Hill
it H
P
H
5 .~ 1..::..
V.
ii1flF:~;.
H.
H..Hii.. H~
H
ii
.


Issued May 1938


Waited


States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


OF


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]


." .: "n, i t'..;- .. 1 5 7 6 -
.*" ,

H. :.wed.. by. the Acting Secretary of Agri
S;raidlJing of Bard-Parker For
*. .yO ... te & IHeyl, Inc. Plea of
S... B.unple Nos. 69868-A, 7001-B.)

, :ji .R.M @uct was a fungicide within
.;"J9J .0l.i.iat contained an inert ingredient,
"i.i, .., ..!.. i ni in rt in Pr in


-1600


culture,


Washington, D. C., March 16, 1938]


maldehyde Germicide.
gusmilty. Fine, $200.


S. v. Parker,
& F. No. 1761.


the meaning of the Insecticide Act of
water, and it was not labeled to indicate
ronniird hv thp lnw


. tjroary 13, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Connecti-
e|.I.ei4ig. upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
..ht" information against Parker, White & Heyl, Inc., a corporation organ-
1tMS under the laws of the State of New York and having a place of business at


DaQati.y, Conn., alleging shipment by said company
..1 from the State of Connecticut into the State of
'pA:4.rnl.5,.1934, from the State of Connecticut into


hA cities of Bard-
icid ..within the
i.)Tvember 2, 19:
. .paving been w
e was heard on N
3O( 1987, on which
4, and 5, and t
namely, 3 and
p.u.nts 3 and 6 cha
t$nce, water, whi
I '(bacteria) and


on or about
New Jersey
the State o


- March 26,
: and on or
f New York


Patker Formaldehyde Germicide, which was a misbranded
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
37, the defendant having entered a plea of not guilty and
waived, the case came on for trial before the court. Evi-
ovember 2, 3, and 4 and the trial was adjourned to Novem-
date the Government entered a nolle prosequi as to counts
he defendant entered a plea of guilty to the remaining
6.
rged misbranding in that the article consisted of an inert
ch substance does not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
the name and percentage amount of the said inert sub-


were not stated plainly and correctly
.ng the article; nor in lieu thereof were
. substance or ingredient of the article
:es .and the total percentage of the iner
ginly and correctly on the bottle, label
eemnber 30, 1937, the defendant was f
. and 6.


on the label affixed to the bottle
Sthe name and percentage amount
Shaving fungicidal (bactericidal)
t substance present in the article


$200 on


its plea


SHARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


of guilty to


Agriculture.


* 4daulieratlon and misbranding of dog soap. U. S. v. Solon Palmer. Plea
Sh of' nolo contendere. FPine, $40. (1. & F. No. 1899. Sample No. 50779-B.)
ilhi product contained smaller amounts of hellebore and sulnhur than de-


W I.
~t9i~tsi; I.






358


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. r.


The article was alleged to be adults ted in that its strength and purity
fell below the professed standard and ltaity under which it was sold since
it was labeled "COntains .01 telebore, .05 sulphur"; whereas it con-
tained less than 0.01 of hellebore and le than 0.05 of sulphur.
The article was rll ed to be misbr dpd in that the following statement
borne on the carto YGontents .01 f leebore, .O5 SuIpbu og oap
* For all animal skin diseases, This soap will not only free him from
fleas, lice, etc," were false and misleadig and by reason of said statements,
it was labeled so as to deceive antd-mislead purchasers since they represented
that it contained 0.01 of helebqaor nd 0.05 of sulphur, that when used as directed
it would act as an effect'e eatment for all animal skin diseases, and would
free dogs from all insects and other conditions AiiLicated by the term "etc.";
whereas it contained lesser amounts of hellebore and sulphur than declared, it
would not act as an effective treatment for all animal skin diseases, and
it would not free dogs from all insects aid all other conditions indicated by the


term "etc."
It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially
substance, namely, water, and the name and percentage amount of
substance were not stated plainly and correctly on the carton label;
thereof were the name and percentage amount of each substance or
of the article having insecticidal or fungicidal properties and the total


of the inert substance or ingredi
on the label.
The information charged that
the Food and Drugs Act, reported
that act.
On September 13, 198T a plea (
defendant, and the court imposed
HAn


of an inert
said inert
nor in lieu
ingredient
percentage


ent present therein stated plainly and correctly
the article was also misbranded in violation of
in notice of judgment No. 27876 published under
of nolo contender was entered on behalf of the
I a fine of $40 for violation of both acts.
ny L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


15T8. Misbranding of Eggstractor Poultry Builder. U. S. v. Henry 0. Stepheus
(Stephens Manufacturing Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $200. (I. & P.
No. 1911. Sample No. 59076-B.)
This product was misbranded because of false and misleading representations
in the labeling regarding its effectiveness in the control of certain insects and
because it consisted entirely of substances which were inert when used as
directed, and these inert substances were not declared on the label.
On April 7, 1987, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against Henry 0. Stephens, trading as the Stephens
Manufacturing Co., Fort Worth, Tex., alleging shipment by said company on
or about September 5, 1935, from the State of Texas into the State of Kansas
of quantities of Eggstractor Poultry Builder, 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 bottle label, "Instantaneous death to all blood sucking insects which
shorten the life of turkeys and chiKens, thus rendering results amazing to
the breeders, when strict observance of directions have been complied with.
* Directions: Use 2% teaspoons b 1 gallon water, or put in water used
for making mash daily for 5 days, then skip 10 days,, thereafter give 1 dose
every 10 days. For baby chicks reduce wise 50%. This is to be based on 100
head. When you rid your flocksof Blue Bugs, fleas, lice and all blood
sucking animals and insects, you ir materially strengthening your net income,
your efforts are rewarded substautially by the use of this Poultry Builder,


L




i
A
*


1576-1600]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


359


name and percentage amount of
the article were not stated plainly
The information charged that


each inert substance or ingredient present in
and correctly on the label.
the article was also misbranded in violation


of the Food and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 27877 published
tinder that act. On November 5, 1937, the defendant entered a plea of guilty
aid the court imposed a fine of $200 for violation of the Insecticide Act of
1910, and $100 for violation of the Food and Drugs Act.


HARRY


L. BROWN,


Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


159. MJnsbranding of The Magic Go-Go Sterilizer and Go-GO. U. S. v. Henry
iM. Sehoen (Stark Chemical Products Co.). Plea of guilty. Penalty of
$50 in lien of fine and costs. (1. & F. No. 1922. Sample No. 54699-B.)
The labeling of these products bore false and misleading representations re-
garding .their effectiveness as sterilizers.
On September 19, 1936, the United States attorney for the Southern District
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against Henry M. Schoen, trading as the Stark
Chemical Products Co., Springfield, Ill., alleging shipment by said defendant
on or about August 6, 1935, from the State of Illinois into the State of New York
of quantities of products called "The Magic Go-Go Sterilizer" and "Go-Go," which
were misbranded fungicides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements
in the labeling, (Magic Go-Go Sterilizer, carton) "Sterilizes Everything in
Tavern and Kitchen Bar Glassware and Beer Coils to free your beer coils from
every atom of bacteria, take 3 tablespoons full of Go-Go, and place in your tank.
Then fill the tank with water. Let solution run through the hose, coil and
faucet. When the solution has run out, re-fill the tank with clear cold water
and let it run off through the coils, hose and faucet. Your delivery system will
then be in a thoroughly sterilized and clean condition. Play safe: Sterilize your
Coils At Least Once A Week Go-Go is used by many business concerns
and industries such as: Taverns, Restaurants, Hotels, Bakeries, Hospitals, The-
atres, Garages, Stores, Dairies, Bottling plants and wherever a thorough reliable
Sterilizer and cleanser is needed. Go-Go sterilizes and cleans Glass-
ware, Dishes, Woodwork, Windows, Floors, etc.," and the following statements
borne on the cartons of the remaining article, (Go-Go, carton) "Sterilizes *
Bar Glassware and Beer Coils To free your beer coils from every
atom of bacteria, take 3 tablespoons full of Go-Go, and place in your tank. Then
fill. the tank with water. Let solution run through the hose, coil and faucet.
When the solution has run out, re-fill the tank with clear cold water and let it


run off through the coils, ho
in a thoroughly sterilized an
by reason of said statements,
lead the purchaser in that 1
sterilizer and would sterilize
and' other things named an


and faucet.


d clean condition,


the
they
ever:
d in(


when used as directed; and that
coils and would free beer coils f
the articles would not be effective


r


Your delivery system


were false and mislea


articles were labeled so as to deceive
represented that the former would


ythi
dica
the
?om
for


ng in the tavern,
ted, would free
latter would ster
bacteria when u
the said purposes


On September 16, 1937, the defendant entered a plea
imposed a penalty of $50 in lieu of fine and costs.


kitchen,
beer coi
ilize bar
sed as d
.


and oth
Is from
glasses
directed;,


1 then be
ding and
and mis-
act as a
er places
bacteria
and beer
whereas


of guilty and the court


IIHar L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1580.. Mlsbranding of Para Moth Tablets and Fragrant Chlorotone Crystals. UT. S.


I






INSEQTIf*A1 <4C


branded insecticide and fungicide wit"i the meaning of the
of 1910.
The moth tablets were alleged to be isbranded in that the
ments, "Para Moth Tablets For upholstered fur
They are wonderful for upholstered udupture. In an ordinary
closet (about 3X4 feet of floor space) pone tablet will keep Mo
months (depending on how often the closet is opened) and shi
ens in storage drawers free from Moths all summer. You s
storage places at least twice each season to see that the Para I
evaporated. These tablets can be broken, and small pieces, E
put in clothes pockets," borne on the cartons, were false and
by reason of said statements, the article wag labeled so as
mislead purchasers in that they represented that the article
directed, would act as an effective insecticide against moths
furniture and against moths generally; whereas when used as d


not be effective for said purposes.
The Chlorotone Crystals were alleged to be misbranded
"These wonderful vaporizing crystals purify the air,
odors. To protect clothing, woolens, furs, etc., place a
crystals in chest or trunk, or open the top of the can and
garments. You can also open the top of the


following state-
sniturel ag
y small storage


ths
would
houl
has
ibou
mis


out for two
keep wool-
d check all
not entirely
t tablet,
leading and


to deceive an
when used as
in uphoTlhr
rected it would


in that the AP tS
combating obnoxious
liberal amount ot the
hang up in closet with
can and sprinkleThe


crystals liberally under the seats in the upholstered furniture,
etc.," borne on the label, were false and misleading and by
statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislh
since they represented that when used as directed, it would
would combat all obnoxious odors, and would protect clothing,
etc., carpets, and upholstered furniture from moth damage; wh
not be effective for the said purposes when used as directed.


On April


6, 1937,


a plea


of guilty was


entered on


behalf


rugs, carpefs
reason of said
ad purchasers
purify the air,
women's furs,
ereas it would

the defendant


and the court imposed a fine of $10.
HARRY I. BaowN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1581. Misbranding of Klinzmoth Lumps, KIlinzmoth Crystals, KHInzmoth Liquid,
Klitnzsmoth Liquid Snow, Klinszmonath Flakes, and Klinzmoth Moth Balls,
U. S. v. David Chernin and Itidor Chernin (Assoelated Drug & Chemical
Co.) Pleas of guilty. Fines, $30. (I. & F. No. 1957. Sample Nos. 62143-B,
71981-B to 71984-B, incl.) i
The labeling of these products, among other misrepresentations, bore a
and misleading claims regarding their effectiveness in the control of
other insects., One of the products, the Klizmoth Lumps, was short weight.
On August 2, 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 David OChernin and Isidor Chernin. co-
partners trading as the Associated Drug & Chemical Co., New York, Nt .
alleging shipment by said defendants on or about April 8, 12, and 15, 1986.
from the State of New York into the State of New Jersey of quantities of the
above-listed products, which were misbranded insecticides within the meaning
of the Insecticide Act of 1910 .
The information charged misbranding of the Klinzmoth Lumps. Klinznmoth
Crystals, Klinzmoth Flakes, and Klinzmoth Moth Balls in that the following
statements borne on the cans were false and misleading and were borne on the
cans so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser since they represented that the


articles when used as directed, would act as effective insectici
bugs; that paradichlorobenzene is the midt effective insecticide k
AA .. 1 Af ** S -* --


ces against fll
own: that the
- -I .


360


[N. ., I F.

Insecticide c
..^.M.^">

!







1576-1600]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


361


misbranded further in that
ozs, when packed," and (bot
authorities as the most power
leading and were borne on t
ceive and mislead purchasers
were the most powerful fuia
most powerful fumigants to
tained less than 14 ounces.
branded further in that the


by authorities as the ma
moth Flakes a
lene, making it many tii
Prevention against Moth
nculars shipped with the
in said circulars so as
were not the most power
times more effective thai
Misbranding of the K
statements, "Klinzmoth
Bed Bugs, Roaches, Flie
Eggs. No inse<
Bugs, Roaches, Flies, Mc
and larvae KlI
benzene-the most effect


moth


on walls


Spray Klinzmoth f
and Mosquitoes: Cl
keep room closed fo
leading and were b
since they represent
bugs, would kill fl
against moths, bedb
'anid, their eggs and


-insecticide kno'


effective for
insecticide k
in that the
The Moth a
Ants and th
overstuffed
and mislead


sa
:noi
fol
nd
eir
fur
ing


floor


the statement,
:h products, ci
arful fumigant
lhe can and c(
since said sta
igants to kill


insects


4-


(lumps


rcular)
to kill
ontain ec
tements
insects
ind the


The flakes and moth
statements, (circula


ost powerful fumigant to kill insE


I


crystals


can
"Klin
insect
in th
repre


: whe


were


'cts


each of


alleged


*


L combination of pure Paradichlorbenzoene and Na
rnes more effective than ordinary Naphthalene f
is; used generally on all garments," appearing
articles were false and misleading and were con
to deceive and mislead purchasers, since the a
rful fumigants to kill insects and they were not
n ordinary naphthalene.
linzmoth Liquid was alleged for the reason th
Liquid kills Bugs Kills
s. Mosquitoes, Ants and many other Insects anc


)SQ
1112
IVE


can liv
uitoes,
moth t
Insect


e in
Ants
he M
icide


of closets.


orcibly


ose windows
r ten minute
orne on the
ted that the
ies and mos
ugs. roaches.


larvae,


and
and


all cracks


nd do<
n (born
Sborni


can so
article
quitoes,
flies, m
that pa


to be


label) "Net Weight 14
zmoth is recognized by
:.'" were false and mis-
te circular so as to de-
sented that the articles
areas they were not the


K
ph
or
11in1
ta
rt


linz-
It a-
r.he
eir-
i ned
icles


flhiIII~


at the
Moths,
I their


It kills Moths, Bed
ects and their eggs
mtains paradichlor-
oths: Spray Klinz-
,d-Bugs, and Ants:
ie. Flies
Small directions and
vere false and mis-
nislead purchasers,
'ted, would kill all
Effective insecticide
many other insects
the most effective


wn; whereas the article when used as directed, would not be
id purposes and paradichlorobenzene is not the most effective
vn. The Klinzmoth Liquid Snow was alleged to be misbranded
lowing statements, "Kliuzmoth Kills Bugs *
Bug Killer in Frosted Snow Form It Kills *
eggs Insects rolled up in thick carpets and buried in
niture are readily killed," borne on the can label, were false
and were borne on the cans so as to deceive and mislead pur-
they represented that the article would kill all bugs, would


chasers, since
readh the eggs
sabffed furnitu


effective for said purposes.
On September 20, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered by
ants and the court imposed fines in the total amount of $30.


HBA.RnY L.


BROWN, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


i82. Misbranding of Corn King Dry Insecticide. U. S. v. The ShoreN Co., Inc
Plea of .guilty. Fine, $25 and costs. (I. & F. No. 1961. Sample No.
63349-B.)
Ptnha lnhAll"ncr nPTh' ",hr ,t hnrna folc-a ansi rvifd m clnod na. 'rnnrcnQntai4-cSna "maerC T.cr l


.t:.:..
1:


shake


thoroughly."


ILLflJI)S


packages of
balls were all'
rs) "Klinzmot


lumps con-
1 to he mis-
; recognized


Kliuzmoth Vapors.
and many other i
oth and Bug Killer
known. *


Roaches,
where insects


ors. Spray freely in
e on the can label, \
as to deceive and i
when used as direc
would act as an e
osquitoes, ants, and
radichlorobenzene is


of ants, and wot
re; whereas the


in


ild kill all insects buried in carpets and over-
article when used as directed, would not be


the defend-


:


]l


p




JN8EOT"IE AU


and mislead purchasers, since they tepipseanted that the article
disinfectant; whereas it would not act a disinfectant.
The information charged that the aicle was also misbran
of the Food and Drugs Act, reported ingnotice of judgment No.
under that act.
On September 28, 1937, a plea of guilI was entered on behal
ant and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs for viola t


[N.J., "LF,

would litt

ded in violation
27706 published


f of the defend-


AREY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculiure.


1583.


Misbranding of Chloron-Ize, U. Sv. Joharvey Ashby (Standard Chemical
Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $10 and costs. (I. & F. No. 1970. Sample
No. 2730-C.)


This product was misbranded because of failure to declare the inert ingredi-
ents present.
On February 25, 1937, the United States attorney for the Western District
of Washington, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculturg, fld
the district court an information against Joharvey Ashby, tradi
Standard Chemical Co., Aberdeen, Wash., alleging shipment by said company
on or about July 13, 1936, from the State of Washington into the State of
Montana of a quantity of Chloron-Ize, which was a misbranded fun ide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of
inert substances or ingredients, namely, sodium carbonate and calcium chloride,
and the name and percentage amount of said inert ingredients were not stated
plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the tin containing the article; 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 therein stated
plainly and correctly on said label.
On October 18, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
and the court imposed a fine of $10 and costs.
HARRy L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

1584. Adulteration and misbranding of Monogram Brand Roach Powder. U. S.
v. Joseph Weishaus and Samuel Kovaes (Royal Manufacturing Co. oft
Duquesne). Pleas of guilty. Fine, $100. (I. & F. No. 1971, Sample No.
6024-C.)
This product contained smaller percentages of the active ingredient
larger percentage of the inert ingredients than declared on the label
On May 4, 1987, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Seeretary of Agriculture, fled hi thedN
triet court an information against Joseph Weishaus and Samuel S. Kdvad,
members of a firm trading as the Royal Manufacturing Co. of Duquesne, Oi-
cago, Ill., alleging shipment by said defendants on or about May 22 1936
from the State of Illinois into the State of Michigan of a quantity of Moxiogtirn
Brand Roach 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 its strength and purity
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold since
it was labeled (Can) "Active Ingredients: Sodium Fluoride 70%, Sodium Bi-
fluoride 2%, Inert ingredients not over 28%"; whereas it contained sodium
fluoride in a proportion less than 70 percent, it contained sodium biffUioide
in a proportion less than 2 percent, and it contained inert ingredients in a
proportion greater than 28 percent.


362


)







12526.4600]


NOTICES


OF JUDGIVEENT


363


declared; (2) a product, designated a
cium arsenate, a substance foreign to


tained smaller proportions of copper and
and which failed to declare the percentage
the inert ingredients contained in the arti
which in fact was not bordeaux mixture
when used. as directed; (4) a lot of bo
smaller proportion of copper and a larger


declared.


Both lots


of border


On March 11, 1937, the Uui
setts, acting upon a report by
court an information against
Mass.,:alleging shipment by s:
State- of Massachusetts into
Mlopper Lime Dust 25-75" an
May 4'and July 13, 1936, fro
Maine and New Hampshire,
Dwy Powdered Bordeaux Mix


copper lime dust, which contained
product so designated, and which


arsenic than indicated on the label
of arsenic in water-soluble form and
cle; (3) so-called bordeaux mixture
and which might injure vegetation
rdeaux mixture which contained a
proportion of inert ingredients than


ux mixture were short weight.
ted States attorney for the District of Massachu-
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
t the Middlesex Chemical Corporation, Malden,
aid company on or about June 25, 1936, from the
the State of New Hampshire of quantities of
d "Copper Lime Dust 20-20-60"; and on or about
m the State of Massachusetts into the States of
respectively, of quantities of "Middlesex Brand
ture," which said products were adulterated and


misbranded within the meaning


Both lots of the c
strength and purity
they were sold in
S6-76 act
represented that it
ofnot less than 25 p


whatea~s
Whereas
2,f 'perce
9Oopper
the label
lime anc
lesS that
whereas
lime,l an(


of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


opper lime dust were alleged to be aduli
fell below the professed standard and
the following respects: The statement
ive ingredients: Copper 9%," borne on
contained monohydrated copper sulph
percent and copper in a proportion of not


it contained monohydrated
nt and copper in a proper
Lime Dust 20-20-60 *
Sof the remaining lot, repr
i a copper compound, and
S7 percent and arsenic in


d


arsenic.
l /ikhe copj
Wtb'eeon tl
leading am
thd.,mislea
attie' ing
c6~tained
percent an
thine less
W aent of
-.. Arsen
stete of a
po brtion
l percent;
Vul but


it consisted of
Contained less


calcium
than 7


er lime dust was
he tags attached t


terated in that their
quality under which
"Copper Lime Dust


the label
ate in a
less than


copper sulphate in a proportion
tion less than 9 percent; the
* Copper 7%, Arsenate 5%,
eseuted that it consisted of a
contained copper in a proport
a proportion of not less than


arenate, monohydrated
percent of copper and


copper sul
ess than 5


of one lot,
proportion
9 percent;
1 less thau
statements
' borne on
mixture of
ion of not
5 percent;
phate, and
percent of


alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements
o the bags containing the article were false and mis-


d by reason of said statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive
id the purchaser in that the statements "Copper Lime Dust 25-75,
redients: Copper 9%," with respect to one lot, represented that it
monohydrated copper sulphate in a proportion of not less than 25
d copper in a proportion of not less than 9 percent; whereas it con-
than 25 percent of monohydrated copper sulphate and less than 9
copper; the statements "Copper Lime Dust 20-20-60 Copper
ate 5%," with respect to the remaining lot, represented that it con-
mixture of lime and a copper compound and contained copper in a
of not less than 7 percent and arsenic in a proportion of not less than
whereas it did not consist of a mixture of lime and a copper corn-
did consist of calcium arsenate, monohydrated copper sulphate, and


lime, and contained less than 7 percent of copper and less than 5 percent of
rntuik. The Copper Lime Dust 20-20-60 was alleged to be misbranded further
1tfthat it consisted of a product other than paris green and lead arsenate, and
&staihed arsenic and the amount of arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as
VBdentnm of metallic arsenic, was not stated nn the Inhpl nd in that it- pn-





0 S[CNT.E A. I. F.r
364~a -fl"TS<^pTI&D .AjOru 0^i i!**

Bordeaux mixture. Not for useon or for late spring or early
summer application on Apples either done or mixed with Lead or Calcium
Arsenate Net Weight One Poind," were false and misleading and by
reason of the said statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mis-
lead the purchaser in that they represeted that it consisted of bordeaux mix-
ture, that it could be used safely on aft crops for which copper fungicides are
recommended, and for middle and late unmer applications on apples, and that
each of the bags contained 1 pound thereof; whereas it did not consist of bor-
deaux mixture, but consisted of a compound of copper and siliceous material,
it could not be used safely on all crops for which copper fungicides are recom-
mended, nor could it be used safely for middle and late summer applications on
apples, and the bags did not contain 1 pound net of the article, but did contain
a lesser amount. The remaining lot of bordeaux mixture Was alleged to be
misbranded in that the following statements, "Copper (CU) not less than 13.0%,
inert ingredients not more than 87.0%, net weight four pounds," borne on the
bags, were false and misleading and by reason of the said statements, the arti-


cle was labeled so as to deceive and-mislead the purchaser since
copper (Cu) in a proportion less than 13 percent, it contained inert
in a proportion greater than 87 percent, and each of the said bags
tain 4 pounds net of the article, but did contain a lesser amount.
One lot of bordeaux mixture was alleged to be adulterated in that
of copper and siliceous material had been substituted in part for


it contained
Ingredients
did not con-

a comn~potd
the article,


and in that it was intended for use dn vegetation and its use on certain
vegetation as directed on the label would be injurious. The remaining Tot o
bordeaux mixture was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was >0s f t
the label onw the bags bore the statements "Copper (Cu) not less than 13.0%,
Inert ingredients not more than 87.0%," whereas it contained copper (CuYffn a
proportion less than 13 percent and inert ingredients in a proportion greater tatin
87 percent. 0<
On May 4, 1937, a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf of the
defendant and the court imposed a fine of $10.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1586. Misbranding of Odo-go, U. S. v. William T. Glass and Edward L. Travis
(Supreme Manufacturing Co.). Pleas of nolo contender. fines, $20.
(I. & F. No. 1981. Sample No. 28026-C.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading claims regard
effectiveness as a disinfectant, antiseptic, germicide, and deodorant, a false
representation that it was nonpoisonous, and it failed to bear a statement indi-
cating the inert ingredients present. A portion was short weight.
On April 24, 1967, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against William T. Glass and Edward L. Travis, trading


as the Supreme Manufacturing Co.
defendants on or about October 14
Texas into the State of California
branded fungicide within the meaning
was put up min glass containers, small
It was alleged to be misbranded
Disinfectant. Antiseptic and Germic


., Dallas, Tex., alleging shipment by
and November 2, 1936, from the Stat
of quantities of Odo-go, which was a
g of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The ar
cartons, and large cans.
in that the following statements, (car
tide When Used As Directed Kills Any (


Caused froin Organic Matter *, Directions Thoroug
teaspoonful of Odo-Go in about one gallon of water, more or l
Wtara a l"htf nini ahintiotn nd i in tho wnsh water of 'lntl


U,


said
e of
mis-
tidcle


ton)
)dor


hly dissolve one
ess in proportion.
hip rpfriprn tanrm_







1576-1600]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


365


.covers all the surface and reached
with perfect safety. A deep pin
Keep a pan or bowl of this Soluti
mixing with food," (can) "Kills
Antiseptic-Kills Germs *
of Odo-Go to one gallon of water,
(carton) "Odo-Go is *
(can) "Net Contents, 4 pounds 8
seaon of said statements, the article
chaserss since they represented t
odors, would act as an effective
keep. odors from mixing with foo
ganic matter, would kill all ger
that the large cans contained 4 p
used as directed would not destr4
feetant, antiseptic, and germicid(
in refrigerators, would not kill a
germs, said article was poison
pounds 8 ounces.
The article was alleged to be
tially of inert substances, name
na.te, and the name and percent
were.not stated plainly and corr
.in lieu thereof were the name
ingredient of the article having
total percentage of the inert si
plainly and correctly on the labe
On October 29, 1937, the def
were each fined $10.


every crack and crevice. Odo-Go may be used
solution is sufficient for most odors. *


on in bottom of refrigerators t
any odor caused from organui
* Directions Dissolve one or
depending upon the organic mi
non-poisonous," (glass "No
ounces," were false and misle
e was labeled so as to deceive
hat when used as directed, it
Disinfectant, antiseptic, and
d in refrigerators, would kill
ms, that the said article was
ounds 8 ounces thereof; where
oy all odors, would not act as
e, would not keep odors from
.l odors from organic matter,
us, and the large cans cont


misbranded further in
ly, substances other than
ge amount of each inert s
ectly on the label affixed
and percentage amount
g fungicidal (bactericidal
ibstanlces or ingredients
I.
:endants entered pleas of


o keep odors from
c matter *
two teaspoonsful
matter to be killed,"
n-poisonous," and
ading and by rea-
and mislead pur-
would destroy all
germicide, would
all odors from or-
nonpoisonous and
as the article when
an effective disin-
mixing with food
would not kill all


gained


than


that it consisted par-
potassium permanga-
ubstance or ingredient
to the containers; nor
of each substance or
[) properties, and the
present therein stated


nolo


contender


HARRY


L. BaOWN, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1587. MIsbranding of Odo-Go. Ui. S. v. Robert G. B
Ashby (National Products Co.). Pleas of guill
No. 1982. Sample Nos. 4639-C, 4640-C.)
This product was misbranded because of false and
t. g its effectiveness as a disinfectant, germicide, and d
r presentationss in its labeling; and because of fail
S.ingredients present.
-On October 19, 1937, the United States attorney for
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricu


court an information against Robert G.
bers of a firm trading as the National
shipment by said defendants on or ab
4 Texas into the State of Missouri of
of Odo-Go, which was a misbranded


ISeecticide Act of 1910.
T he product contained in ca
following statements borne on
..When used as directed kills an
..nO odor itself This c
solution Thoroughly
-One gallon of water, more or l(
and use in the wash and mop
..drain boards, kitchen cabinets, r


ns


was


. Branham
Products (
out Septei
a number
fungicide


alleged


the cni, "Disi
y odor caused


an will make
dissolve One 1
?ss in proportic
water for floor
refrigerators, ba


Land
do., F
nber
of c
Switl


ranham and William F.
ty. Fines, $250. (I. & F.

misleading claims regard-
leodorant, and other mis-
ire to declare the inert

the Northern District of
lture, filed in the district
William F. Ashby, mem-
ort Worth, Tex., alleging
19, 1936, from the State
inaus and sample packages
hin the meaning of the


to be misbranded


mfectant


Germicide


in that


* *


from organic matter and leaves
one hundred gallons of Odo-Go
evel teaspoonful of Odo-Go in
n. Make a Dark Pink Solution
s, dishes, cooking vessels, sinks,
.thtubs, wash basins, show cases,






366

when
cide, i
The
certain
reason
mislea
all ge
an op(
in the
antisel
not be
antise]


11


AOl


used as directed, it wouldn't a asan effective d
t would not ill.all germs anda rs, and it wa
product contained in the sam was alleged to
n statements contained in a ci ar were false a
i of the said statements, the a cle was labeled
d the purchasers, since they r resented that it
rms and all odors, would abso the odors effect
mn dish in a refrigerator, would isinfeet the place
circulars when used as directed and was composed
ptic, and deordorizing chemicals known to scien
effective for said purposes and was not composed
ptic, and deodorizing chemicals known fo science


lively
s and
of ttl
e; v
of tl
e. It


when placed in
things indicated
Best germicide,
iereas it would
? best germicide,
was alleged to


be misbranded further in that the following statements in the labeling, (circular)
"Phenol coefficient 5.6 Odo-Go kills 'berthella typhi' (typhoid bacillus) in
a dilution of 1-675 in 10 minutes. This is equal to 1 2 to 1% teaspoonfuls per
gallon Non-poisonous," (package) "Germicide and insecticide. Direc-


tions: Thoroughly dissolve One level teaspoonful of Odo-Go ii
water, more or less in proportion Odo-Go is a non-
killer," were false and misleading and by reason of said state
was labeled so as *to deceive and mislead purchasers in that t
that the article was a stable disinfectant for which the coefficient
of its disinfectant value, whereas it was not; that it would kill
in a dilution of 1 to 675 in 10 minutes when used as direc


would not; that it was an effective disinfectant
teaspoonful to 1 gallon of water, whereas it was
poisonous, whereas it was not nonpoisonous.
Both lots were alleged to be misbranded further
partially of inert substances, namely, substances
manganate, and the name and percentage amount


ingredient


were


stated


thereof were the name and
of the article having fungl
eentage of the inert substi
on the label.
The information alleged
in violation of the Food and
published under that act.
On November 5, 1937, th
imposed a fine of $50 again
F. Ashby for violation of b
H


plainly


correctly


percentage amount of e
ecidal (bactericidal) pr
antces present therein; s


n One gallon of
poisonous germ


ents
hey
was
typi
ted,


in the dilution
not; and that


, the article
represented
s descriptive
toid bacillus
whereas it
of 1 level


was


non-


in that the article consisted
other than potassium per-
of each inert substance or
on the label; nor in Thu
sach substance or ingredient
operties, and the total per-
itated plainl>~an


that the samples were adulterated and misbranded
Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 27878


e defendants entered pleas of
inst Robert G. Branham and
oth acts.
AiY L. BROWN, .Acting Scfre


guilty and the court
$200 against William


tary


Agriculture.


1588. Adulteration and misbranding of M--E Chlorine Solution. U. S. v, 19
Quarts of M-E Chlorine Solution. Default decree of condemnation and
destruction. (I. & F. No. 1991. Sample No. 34124-C.) ,
This product was adulterated and misbranded because it contained sodium
hypochlorite in a proportion less than declared. It was misbranded further
because of false and misleading claims regarding its sterilizing, bactericidal,
germicidal, disinfectant, and insecticidal properties, and other misrepresenta-
tions in the labeling; and because of allure to declare the inert ingredients
present in the article.
On May 28, 1987, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seizure ad condemnation of 19 quarts of M-E


[N.J.,. VF.

Lisinfectant, and germi-
s not nonpoisonous.
be misbranded in that
nd misleading and by
so as to deceive and
would kill or destroy







1576-1600]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


367


leading and by reason of said statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive
and mislead purchasers, since it contained less than 7 percent of sodium hypo-
chlorite, and was not nonpoisonous. It was alleged to be misbranded further in
that it consisted partially of inert substances, namely, substances other than
sodium hypochlorite, which substances do not destroy, repel, or mitigate insects
or fungi, and the name and percentage amount of each inert ingredient or sub-


stance contained in
nor in lieu thereof
having insecticidal
substances so prese
SIt was alleged to


the article were not stated plainly and correctly on the label:
were the names and percentage amounts of each ingredient
or fungicidal properties and the total percentage of the inert
nt therein stated plainly and correctly on the label.
be misbranded further in that certain statements on the labels


were false and misleading, and by reason thereof the article was
deceive and mislead purchasers since they represented that the a
as a sterilizer and would destroy all harmful bacteria: that it
tainted meat; that it would disinfect bedpans, nursing bottles, z
sickrooms; would sterilize laundered articles and fillers, cans,
churns, bottles, etc.; would disinfect incubators, brooders, batter
floors, feeders, animals, and walls, and would disinfect milking
used as directed; would act as an effective insecticide against


beetles, and other insects; would act as an effect
of mange that infect animals and would be effective
animals when used as directed; that it would
against mites, nits, and fleas: that it would act as
sterilize and kill all forms of harmful bacteria oi
indicated on the labels; that it possessed many ti
Undiluted carbolic acid under all conditions, would


ive treatment for
,e for any variety
ict as an effective
a sterilizer and I
i the things and
mes the germ-kill
sterilize drinking


labeled so as to
article would act
would disinfect


ripples, etc., and
pails, strainers,
ies, coops, stable
machines when
rose bugs, bean


all
of
re i
that
int
ing
wat


varieties
mange on
nsecticide
it would
he places
power of
:er, would


eliminate contagious


and infectious diseases of animals


act as a positive destroyer of all bacteria and ger
disinfectant when used as directed; would make I
directed; would control potato rust; would control
all smuts of wheat and barley; that it would be eft
mites that infest sheep and would be effective a
directed; would rid garden truck, vines, shrubbery.
all pests; whereas when used as directed, it would
purposes, it did not possess many times the gerr


carbolic acid
The article
Drugs Act, re
On August
was entered


under all condit
was alleged to
ported in notice
11, 1937, no cla
mnd the product


ions and wo
be misbrandi
of judgment
imant havin
was ordered


and poultry


Ls: wou
Dakin s<
2orn smi
ective i
Against
flowers.
not be


n-killing


an


Ild act as an
solution when
ut; and would
n destroying
moths when
etc. of all ins(
effective for I


power


uld not make Dakin's s
ed further in violation
No. 27737 published un
g appeared, judgment
destroyed.


U1


i would
effective
used as
control
nits and
used as
ects and
:he said
diluted


solution .
of the Food and
der that act.
of condemnation


HARRY L. BROWN, Acti'g Secretary of Agricul
1589. Misbranding of Moth Wool. U. S. v. 532 Cartons of Moth Wool.
sent decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & P. No. 1993.
Nos. 31118-C, 31119-C.)


lurt.'.
Con-
Sample


This product was misbranded because of false and misleading claims in the
labeling regarding its effectiveness in the control of moths, because of failure
to declare the total amount of arsenic and the total percentage of arsenic in
water-soluble form, expressed as metallic arsenic, and because of failure to
delare the inert ingredients present.
H On June 4, 1937, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado.
egting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
A libel praying seizure and condemnation of 532 cartons of Moth Wool at
- -. rIN di 1-.a .-.f .3 'L~fi- T I =.. "'--f l ~ l S--. T -- --11-I-.- .-'- ,, 'l -- ---. --' I- t






36 INSEQTIE ACAT I N. J., I. F.
It was alleged to be misbranded furtlr an that it was &f insecticide other
than paris green *udliead arsenate, aid anained arsenic, and the total amount
of arsenic so presentexpressed as percn m of metallic arsenic, was not stated
on the label; and in- that it contained j senic in water-soluble form and the
total percentage of arsenic in water-so ble form, expressed as percentum of
metallic arsenic, was not stated on the 1 .
It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it contained substances other
than arsenous oxide and the name and percentage amount of the said inert
substances present therein were not stated plainly and correctly on the package
label; nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount of each sub-
stance of the article having insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of
the inert substances or ingredients present therein stated plainly and correctly
on the label. .
On June 16, 1937, Baltus Rolfs, Inc., the sole intervenor, having consented to
the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation -was entered and the product
was ordered destroyed. -


HARRY L. EnowN, Aping Becretary of A
1590. Adulteration and. misbranding; of liquor eresolis compositus,
v. Allbert Levy (Globe Sanitary' Supply' Co.). Plea of guilty.
(. I(& F. No. 1995- Sample No. 35898-C.)


agriculture.
USP. U. S.
Fine, $400.


-. -^ i- --a --
This product contained water in excess of the amount declared, it contained
an inert ingredient other than that declared, oil or oils other than liuieeJ pil
were substituted in part for linseed oil in its manufacture, and its labe
false and misleading claims regarding its sterilizing properties.
On July 19, 1937, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in t
district court an information against Albert Levy, trading as the Globe Sanitary
Supply Co., Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment by said defendant oel
October 15, 1936, from the State of California into the State of Nevada 4o a
quantity of Globe Liquor Cresolis Compositus that was adulterated and -
branded.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Liquor
Cresolis Compositus UTJSP Water inert ingredient not over 14 '
borne on the drum containing it, represented that its standard and quality were
such that it was composed of the ingredients and quantities of the ingredients
prescribed in the United States Pharmacopoeia, and contained water iin a po-
portion of not more than 14 percent, whereas its strength and purity fell beliw
the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since an oil or


oils other than linseed oil had been substituted in whole or in pai
oil in the manufacture of the article, and it contained water in
much greater than 14 percent. The article was alleged to be adult
in that the statement "Liquor Cresolis Compositus," borne on the
sented that it consisted of liquor cresolis compositus as prescribed
States Pharmacopoeia; whereas an oil or oils other than linseed


substituted wholly or in part for linseed oil in the manufacture of
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Water
ent not over 14%," "Liquor Cresolis Compositus USP," and "Direc
for sterilizing surgical instruments use 1 to 2% solution of
Cresolis," borne on the drum, were false and misleading and1
said statements, it was labeled and branded so as to deceive an
purchaser since they represented that the article contained not
percent of water, that water was the only inert ingredient, that
cresolis compositus as prescribed in the United States Pharm


- .- -* -


rt for insee
a propori on
rated further
drum, repre-
in the United
oil had been


the article.
Inert Ingredi-
tions *
Globe Liquor
by reason of
d mislead the
more than 14
it was liquor
acopoeia, and




m

I1576--1600] NOTICES O0
i


JUDGMENT


369


1591. Adulteration and misbranding of Niagara A-1 Dust Mixture. U. S. v. 20
Drums and 12 Drums of Niagara A-I Dust Mixture. Default decree of
condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. No. 1997. Sample Nos. 47009-C,
47168-C.)


This


product


contained


a larger proportion
On July 9, 1937,
acting upon a rep
court a libel prayi
and 12 drums, 25
N. J., alleging that
April 10, 1937, by t
N. Y., and charging
Act of 1910.
The article was
fell below the prof
the label bore the
Inert Ingredients r
portion less than 2
greater than 97.3 pe
It was alleged tc
on the drum label,


Sit was labeled so as
an active ingredient,
and contained inert
On September 27, 1
tion was entered and


of
the
ort
[g
pou
t it
hlie
ad


the
Un
by
seiz
nds
ha
Nia


a smaller


iner
lited
the
ure a
ench
d bee
gara


proportion


t ingredients
States attorn
Secretary of
nd condemna
, of Niagara
.n shipped in


of th


than decla
ey for the
Agricultu
tion of 20
A-1 Dust
interstate


Sprayer & Chemical


Cc


e active ingredient
hired on the label.
District of New Je
re, filed in the di!
drums, 10 pounds
Mixture at Swedes


commerce
)., Inc., from


on or
Midd]


S


rsey,
strict
each,
boro,
bout
?port,


ulteration and misbranding in violation of the Insecticide


alleged to be
essed standard


statements,


adulterated
and quality


"Active


lot over 97.30%"; where
.7 percent and contain
recent.
be misbranded in that
vere false and misleading


to deceive a
namely, ni
ingredients
937, no clai
the product
HARY


nd mislea
cotine, in
in a propl
nant haviL
was order
L. BRowN,


n that
under


Ingredient Nico


eaq it
id inert


its strength
which it was
tine not less


contained nicotine
: ingredients in a


and
sold,
than


purity
since
2.70%


in a pro-
proportion


the above-quoted statements borne
g, and by reason of said statements,
d the purchasers, since it contained
a proportion less than 2.7 percent
artion greater than 97.3 percent.
ig appeared, judgment of condcmna-
ed destroyed.


A


ctling


Secretary


Agriculture.


1592. Misbranding of Destruxol. UT. S. v. 22 Cans, 36 2-Ounce and 72 1-Ounce,
Bottles of Destruxol. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.


Thi
tions
and f
On
upon
libel
2-oun
Ariz.,


(I: & F. No. 1998.


was


product


Sample No. 100
isbranded becar


39-C.)


ise


in its labeling regarding its effectiveness


ungi.
July 16, 1937
a report by


pra:
ce
all


February
charging
The ar
"A spray
Thrips,
(25) gall
Rust and
were fals
so as to
when use


the United States attorney
the Secretary of Agricultu


false and misleading representa-
in the control of certain insects

for the District of Arizona, acting
ire, filed in the district court a


ring seizure and condemnation of twenty-two 4-ounce
bottles, and seventy-two 1-ounce bottles of Destrux
eging that it had been shipped in interstate commer
24, 1937, by the Destruxol Corporation from Los Ang
misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
ticle was alleged to be misbranded in that the follow
for insects such as Mealy Bug, Red Spid
* Directions Use the contents of this container


ous
I Oa
e an
decei
d as


spiders, lea
fungous infE
d as directed
spiders, lea
all fungous


Water. *
Fungus use ]
misleading an
? and mislead
directed, would
f rollers, and
?stations, such
, it would not
f rollers, and
infestations,


cans, thirty-six
Lol at Phoenix,
ce on or about
eles, Calif., and


vii
er
r *


For all fungous infestation si
Destruxol double strength," borne
d by reason of the said statements,


purcha
act as
thrips,
as mi
act as
thl rips
such a


sers since th
an effective
and would
Idew, rust, a
an effective
and would


Smildew


, ru


I


ng

to
ch
onil
it


tey represented tha
insecticide against
act as an effective
ind oak fungus; wJ
insecticide against
not act as an effect
st. and oak funsui


I


statements,
Leaf Roller,
Twenty-five
as Mildew,
the labels,
was labeled
t the article
mealy bugs,
control for
aereas when
mealy bugs,
tive control
s.


is


A


]





370 ACT,


[N.J.,.F. :.


the State of Michigan into the Sta0 of diana of a quantity of stock dip and
disinfectant, which Was a misbran&cd S4gicide within the meaning of the
Insecticide Act of 1910.
Count 1 alleged, that the article as misbranded m that it consisted
partially of an ine t substance, namely water, and the naie and percentage
amount of the inert substance were not ated plainly and correctly, or at all,
on the label affixed to the an containinmg the article; 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 substance present therein, stated plainly.and correctly on the label.
Count 2 alleged that the article was also misbranded in violation of the
Federal Caustic Poison Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 83 published
under that act.
On September 8, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the tenant
and the court imposed a fine of $125 on the first count and $200 on the
second count, and ordered that the fine on the latter count be suspended for
9r. j- Jft inf g~ C. ..:


ii jeaia~.


HAmwY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of A


1594. Adulteration and misbranding of Neetol Pine Disinfectant and misbrand-
ing of Reliable Disinfectant. U. S. v. The Ton Jour Supply Co. Plea
of guilty. Fine, $40. (I. & F. No. 2005. Sample Nos. 12316-C, 12298-C.t
This case involved Pine Disinfectant in which mineral oil had been substi-
tuted in part for pine oil and which possessed a lower phenol coefficient than
declared and Reliable Disinfectant which contained inert ingredients that ware
not declared as required by law.
On November 4, 1937, the United States attorney for the Eastern District
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fildd in the
district court an information against the Tou Jour Supply Co., a corporal
Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company on or about February 16
and March 30, 1937, respectively, from the State of New York into the State of
Massachusetts of a quantity of Reliable Disinfectant that was misbranded, ad
a quantity of Neetol Pine Disinfectant that was adulterated and misbranded.
The Pine Disinfectant was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement
"Pine Disinfectant," borne on the bottle label, represented that it consisted of


pine-oil disinfectant; whereas it did not but another subst
oil, had been substituted in part for pine oil.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "
and "F. D. A. Phenol Co-Efficient 2," borne on the label,
leading and by reason of said statements, it was labeled
mislead the purchaser in that they represented that it
disinfectant and possessed a phenol coefficient of 2 as te
method; whereas it did not consist of pine-oil disinfec


ance, namely, mineral

Pine Oil Disinfectant"
were false and mis-
so as to deceive and
consisted of pine-oil


'sted
tant


1


of a mixture of a pine-oil disinfectant and mineral oil and pos
coefficient lower than 2, namely, 1.1 as tested by the F. D. A.
The Reliable Disinfectant was alleged to be misbranded in t
partially of an inert substance or ingredient, namely, water, an
percentage amount of the inert ingredient were not stated plain
on the label, nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage


substance or
ties, and the
on the label.
The inform
in violation (


y the F. D. A.
but did consist
sessed a phenol
method.
hat it consisted
d the name and
ly and correctly
amount of each


ingredient of the article having fungicidal (bactericidal) proper-
total percentage of the inert ingredients stated plainly and correctly
Nation charged that the Reliable Disinfectant was also misbranded
)f the Federal Caustic Poison Act. reported in notice of iudrment


~Th






1576-16001


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


371


district court an information
ville, Ind., alleging shipment
from the State of Indiana int
All Pineaseptic Disinfectant,
meaning of the Insecticide Ac
The article was alleged to b
destroys bad odors *
antiseptic Hospital
on the label, were false and


article was labeled so as to
represented that it would kill
as directed, and would be an
would not kill all germs and
directed, and would not be an
It was alleged to be misbra
inert substance, namely, waste
said inert substance were not s
affixed to the container; nor
amount of each substance or
tericidal) properties and the
therein stated plainly and corr


against the Pro-Tex-All Co., a corporation, Evans-
by said company on or about December 29, 1936,
.o the State of Kentucky of a quantity of Pro-Tex-
which was a misbranded fungicide within the
t of 1910.
ie misbranded in that the statements, "Kills germs,
SAntiseptic it is a pleasing *
s standardize on Pineaseptic Disinfectant," borne
misleading and by reason of said statements, the


deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they
all germs and destroy all bad odors when used


effective antiseptic for
would not destroy all
effective antiseptic for
ended further in that it
r. and the name and


stated pl
in lieu
ingredie
total pe


airily and corr
thereof were
nt of the arti
rcentage of tI


e
1


hospital
bad odor
hospital u
consisted
percentage
ctly, or at
the name


cle
ie


having
inert sul


ectly, or at all, on the label.


. On October 22, 1937, a plea of guilty was
and the court imposed a fine of $25.


use; where
s when used
se.
partially of
amount of
all, on the la
and percent
fungicidal (


stances


s it
Sas


present


entered on behalf of the defendant


. HAnY L.


BROWN, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1596. Adulteration and misbranding of
Bonide Fly Spray and Bonide Sto
Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25.
66418--B, 66419-B, 66420-B.)
The labeling of these products conta
tions regarding their effectiveness in th
the Greentox was labeled as being 100
water, an inert ingredient, which was
by law.


On April 20,


1937,


New York, acting
district court an in
alleging shipment
from the State of
April 6 and April
were misbranded;
Greentox which w


the United


States


upon a report by th4
formation against the
by said company in
New York into the
27, 1936, of quantitie;
and on or about Apr
as misbranded and a


One lot of the Greentox


alleged


and purity fell below the professed
Mold since it was labeled "Active Ingr
ingredients in a proportion much less
'Both lots of the Greentox were al
ments, "This Product contains Roteno
and cube combined with fumigants
mnfner as to give effective control o


Roses, vines,
Greentox in
diluted 1 to
flies, leaf ho
httetmediate


plants,
small q
800-or
ppers, e
resistant


Bonide Greentox, and misbranding of
ck Spray. U. S. v. Bonide Chemical Co.,
(I. & F. No. 1973. Sample Nos. 66173-B,


ined false
e control
percent
not declat


Sand misleading representa-
of insects. One shipment of


active;
red on


attorney for the
e Secretary of Ag
SBonide Chemical
violation of the I
State of New Ha
s of Fly Spray an
il 14 and May 13,


part of


whict


IWI


to be adulterated


whereas
the label

Northern
riculture,
Co., Inc.,
insecticide
impshire
id Stock
1936, of
as also a
I in that


I


;contained
ts required

District of


filed in the
Utica, N. Y.,
Act of 1910
on or about
Spray which
quantities of
dulterated.
its strength


standard and quality under whicb
edients 100%"; whereas it contain
than 100 percent.
leged to be misbranded in that th
ne and the other active principles a
and effective spreading agents in
f an unusual variety of insects on


vegetables, shrubs, etc. *
uantity of water, then dilute


to bulk


1 oz. to 6 gals. of water control
tc. 1 to 400-or 1 oz. to 3 gals.
ce. 1 to 400-or 1 oz. to 1'A gals


Di
re


reactions
'quired. (


Sit was
ed active

ie state-
of derris
such a
flowers,
Dissolve
;reentox


plant lice, thrips, white
of water, for insects of


. of water, for hardier


l


u






372 ACT0 |N.J., I. 1.

eican Bean Beetles, Plant Lice, WormVl Slugs, Thrips, etc.," appearing in a
circular and on a card shipped with said option of the article, represented that
when used as directed, it would kill all Bcng and chewing insects, al worms,
caterpillars, beetles, and sucking inse d, and all other insects that might be
included under the abbreviation "etc." whereas it would not be effective for
said purposes. A portion was misbranfted in that the statements "Active In-
gredients 100%," botre on the bottle label, represented that the article contained
active ingredients it a proportion not less than 100 percent; whereas it contained
active ingredients in a proportion much lower than 100 percent. One lot Was
alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially of an inert
substance or ingredient, namely, water; and the name and percentage amount
of the said inert ingredient present therein were not stated plainly and cor-
rectly on the bottle label; nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage
amount of each substance or ingredient of the article having insecticidal prgp-
erties and the total percentage of the inert substance present therein stated
plainly and correctly on the bottle label.
The fly spray was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements fn e
labeling were false and misleading and by reason thereof, it was labeled so as
to deceive and mislead purchasers in the following respects: The stateienits
"Bonide X Fly Spray for Household Uses Kills Flies, Etc.," borne on the ottle
label, represented that when used as directed, the article would be effective in
killing flies and all other insects that might be included under the abbreviation
"Etc."; whereas it would not be effective for said purposes.
The stock spray was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "
Spray Repellent Enduring Repellency Kills In addition to
the superior repelling qualities of Bonide, it likewise kills certain flies and mos-
quitoes that annoy livestock," borne on the can label, represented tM
used as directed, the article would be effective in the killing of certain species
of flies that annoy or attack livestock, would be an effective repellent ag
species of flies that attack or annoy livestock, and would possess enduring refi-
lency against all species of flies; whereas it would not be effective for said

and the court imposed a fine of $25. 11
HAuY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary ofAgrc kft

1597. Adulteration and misbranding of Bonide Nicotox. U. S. v. Bonide Cte2
cal Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. No. 2009. Sample No.
20827-C.) oo
This product contained a smaller proportion of nicotine sulphate and pnienofs


and a larger proportion of inert ingredients than declared on
On October 25, 1937, the United States attorney for thi
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agric
district court an information against the Bonide Chemi cal Co.
alleging shipment by said company on about January 8, 1937,
New York into the State of Massachusetts of a quantity o
which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide within t


Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its store
below the professed standard and quality under which it w
labeled "Nicotine Sulphate 15%, Phenols 2%, Inert Ingred
it contained less than 15 percent of nicotine sulphate, les
phenols, and more than 83 percent of inert ingredients.
TI- nra a 1i anjt fI'n ha "m4 Slhm -n-ynlA^l 4, +Mhna4- +h1,a a hnrvn'n 1


ms


the label.
Northern District
culture, filed in the
, Inc., Utica, N. Y..
from the State of
f Bonide Nicotox,


bhe meaning of the
rth and purity fell
sold, since it was
its 83%"; whereas
than 2 percent of


r dJ-n I-nnjnnrty Ac, n inrn


Ir f31r




H! ii.


1576-1600]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


373


court an information against the Foodndrink Fertilizer Co., a corporation, Cam-
bridge, Mass., alleging shipment by said company on or about February 15, 1937,


from the State of Massachui
arsenate of lead cartridges
meaning of the Insecticide Act
The article was alleged to
borne on the label, "Arsenate
tain leaf eating or chewing in


pers, and Codli
was labeled so
that it would
as flea beetle,
not be effective
On November
defendant and


setts into the State of Flor
which were a misbranded i
of 1910.
be misbranded in that the
of Lead Cartridges are for


sects, such


SMoths," were false an
to deceive and mislead
fin* j


is Flea Beet
misleading
ie purchaser
* r -2!_ _


le,
and
in


ida of a
insecticide


quantity
within


following statements
the spraying of cer-


Inch worm, Orasshop-
by reason thereof, it
that they represented
_ -_ _._ -


be effective against certaiD leaf-eating OF ObeWing IBSectS, Such
inch worm, grasshoppers, and codling moths; whereas it would
for said purposes when used as directed.
r 9, 1937, a plea of nolo contendere was entered on behalf of the
the court imposed a flue of $10.


HARRY L. BRowN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1599. Misbranding of Sunshine
Poultry Laboratories.
Sample No. 19811-C.)


State Louse Powder.
Plea of guilty. Fine,


Sunshine
& F. No.


State
2011.


This product


was


misbranded


because of


the failure of


the label


to declare


the inert ingre4
On October
Dakota, acting
district court a
a corporation,
about Februar,
Minnesota of
branded insecti
The article


dients present.
20, 1937, the United


Supon a report
Ln information a
Sioux Falls, S.


V

'ci'
'Va


inert substances
stances were no
containing the
amount of eac
properties and
stated plainly a
On November


2,


1937


quantity o
de within
s alleged
and the n


from


f S
the
to
ame


by
gains
Dak.
the
unshi
mea


t


States attorney
he Secretary


for
of A


the Distr
riculture,


t the Sunshine State Poultr
, alleging shipment by said
State of South Dakota int
ne State Louse Powder, wh


ning


of the Insecticide Act


be misbranded in that it
and percentage amount


consis
of the


rict


of South


filed in the
Laboratories,
mpany on or
the State of
1 was a mis-
1910.
partially of
id inert sub-


it stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the carton
article; nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage
h substance or ingredient of the article having insect-idal
the total percentage of the inert substances present therein
nd correctly on the label.


1937, a plea


of guilty


having


been


entered


the defendant, the court imposed a fine of $25.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


on behalf


Agriculture.


1600. Misbranding of Humane Dry Insecticide. T. S. v. Ten 25-Pound Pails
and Five 10-Pound Cartons of Humane Dry Insecticide. Default decree
of condemnation and destruction. (I. & P. No. 1976. Sample No. 19601-C.)


This product contained a smaller
proportion of inert matter than decl
On April 28, 1937, the United ,
Dakota, acting upon a report by
district court a libel praying seizure
and five 10-pound cartons of Huma
alleging that the article had been s
September 21, 1935, by the Humane


* prop
red onr
states
he Se
Sand
e Dry
lipped


portion of nap)
i the label.
attorney for
cretary of Ag
condemnation
Insecticide at
in interstate


Remedy Co.,


fr


article was labeled in part: "Naphthalene 31 pct.
pet."
The libel alleged that the article was misbranded


hthalene


a larger


the District of
riculture, filed i
of ten 25-pound
u Sioux Falls, S.
commerce on or


am Des Moines,
inert


Iowa.


South
n the
pails
Dak.,
about
The


matter


within the meaning of the


Si!
C
I


t


5


I


w




-.


V
~ ~t;


>


AK^ "


INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 1576-1600


Arsenate of lead cartridges:
Foodndrink Fertilizer Co---_
Bard-Parker Formaldehyde Germicide
Parker, White & Heyl, Inc..-.--
Bonide Fly Spray:
Greentox:
Bonide Chemical Co., Inc...-
Nicotox :
Bonide Chemical Co., Inc_--
Stock Spray:
Bonide Chemical Co., Inc_..
Bordeaux mixture:
Middlesex Chemical Corp4
ration..- -... .... __ _- --


N
e-
|
-
*-


- -
* -

o -
* -


Chloron-Ize:
Ashby, Joharvey-----...
Standard Chemical Co---......
Copper lime dust:
Middlesex Chemical Corpo-
ration. --- .-- -- ...--.
Corn King Dry Insecticide:
,Shores Co., Inc_-._--a.-.-.__
Destruxol :
Destruxol Corporation-----_....
Dog soap:
Solon Palmer -- --.------..-.-
Eggstractor Poultry Builder:
Stephens, 0.--...--....--.-
Stephens Manufacturing Co.-..
Fragrant bhlorotone Crystale:
Bleecker-Foster, Inc.-..-.....
S Foster, G. F., Products Co-- -


Go-Go:


Schoen, H. M- .-----.- _
Stark Chemical Products Co-
Humane Dry Insecticide:
Humane Remedy Co----_-.. _
Klinzmoth Crystals:
Flakes:
Liquid:
Liquid Snow:
Lumps:
Moth Balls:
Associated Drug & Chemical
Co. .- --- -- -


.J.No.
1598

1576

1598
1597
1596

1585
1588
1583

1585
1582
1592

1577
1578
1578
1580
1580
1579
1579
1600






1581


Klinzmoth products-Continued. N.
Chernin, ,David..-------......
Chernin, Isidor-------
Liquor cresolis compositus:
Globe Sanitary Supply Co --
Levy, Albert.. ----------
Magic Go-Go Sterilizer:
Schoen, H. M. -------------
Stark Chemical Products Con
M-E Chlorine Solution:
M-E Chemical Products Co--
Monogram Brand Roach Powder:
Kovacs, Samuel-----
Royal Manufacturing Co. of
Duquesne -------
Weishaus, Joseph.- -------
Moth Wool:
Baltus Rolfs, Inc-------
Neetol Pine Disinfectant:
Tou Jour Supply Co---- ----
Niagara A-1 Dust Mixture:
Niagara Sprayer & Chemical
Co., Inc---------------


Odo-Go:
Ashby, W.
Branham,
Glass, W.
National ]
Supreme
Travis, E.


R. G- -----
- -----
Products Co..----.
Manufacturing Co-.
L ------------


- -
- -
- -
- -
- -


Para Moth Tablets:
Bleecker-Foster, Inc.........
Foster, G. F., Products Co---
Pro-Tex-All Pineaseptic Disinfectant:
Pro-Tex-All Co- _---------


Reliable Disinfectant:
Tou Jour Supply Co--..--...... -
Stock dip and disinfectant:
Reynolds, James T., & Sons,
Inc-.....----------------
Sunshitie State Louse Powder:
Sunshine State Poultry Labora-
tories- --- -


J.No.
1581
1581
1590
1590
1579
1579
1588

1584
1584
1584

1589

1594

1591
1587
1587
1586
1587
1586
1586
1580
1580

1595

1594


1593


1599





U


I
~IIk.:'. -
H..


*HE....

























hit.
I,.
H
A.
kv
H
H
.win.
iHHi..~~
'it ii -.
H:
** .. V
I- t:Y

i...iib..
I
*iii..Hii~


IYHA

h* HH*.ii*
HUH *
-~


'! %.

i A

I.
m





m
mc:




C ll :.i,*, .::..=i rrF
F "' :'. : ":: *:MrE *:E-" :.

iih ~~~~~~.. -, *' .- .,: .. I .. V* .
^ ** :**::" "* : *:" '""**.5 **


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA






l Il li ll l ll 11lIHhll illinUIll ll

3 1262 08582 4927



"- :-- s;. <: ,.- .. :
.. ".. .:5 *:,





"V *
.. .







.: "t .'.r '
:":..::K :" < :"
*x ^



.. .....*.



.1 *
: : "....
Ti. .. )d* ....'.
:A : 1:" ^ '
*'*i. "*!. *^ .



.. *

..-. -. .i..
," / ".....
.. :'' .



S H. : : :.' .



." *. .-"I ? ..i.

F -
... ...
.* ,r: .. :- -
H i. -" .

." *: i *
.:. .. .. *
*...* : .. *
t .' f :q .*. i. *


..I A g*. .*.i" *hl:^ ::
a '* '.v : : : "I.h ipr^S
.. v. : *1.
.LM
*' : j* I "

": 1

.. "..' r

.H




** .


.. .*g"








I














II
.'1
.*- :* .:4 i
















*'1 .




.1:"


A.1




.......
..
















I

.
T




4.
.4



II
::i*





























4'
1*
: :* .*!:




." .. *'
i. |
I i "." i .
.i"








.. .-;I,

*~ ~ II-::
.:*T
I i

..*!41