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:
AA00008549:00027

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text




N. 3-., I. F. 1601-1635


Issued November 1938


United


States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act


1601-1635


[Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture,
'1 1 i .
"i,


Washington, D. C.,


September


21, 1938]


.,p1.. Misbranding of Mirto-San N
Laboratories of Colorado,
2014. Sample No. 41187-C.)
S'The labeling of this product bori
ing its properties as a disinfectant
water.


On November 18, 1937, the
dating npon a report by the
anh information against Hun
meant by the said defendant i
May 3, 1937, from the State
Minto-San Mint Formaldehy


lint Formaldehyde Spray. UI. v. Huntington
Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $200. (I. & P. No.


e false and misleading representations regard-
at and failed to declare an inert ingredient-


United States attorney for the District
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the d


tington Laborator
n violation of the
of Colorado into
de Spray which v


.fThe article was alleged to be mi!
"Antiseptic-The Master Corrective
and bacteriological disturbances.
.Spray Minto-San into the school r
school room spray Minto-San into ti
lavatory bowls should be sprayed li
in an antiseptic manner. Spray Min
booths, smoking rooms, churches, m
Wipe door knobs, telephone mouth


stranded
Medium
Instructi


ies of Colorado, Inc., a
Insecticide Act of 1910
the State of Utah of a
ras misbranded.
in that the following
for dormant air and
)ns And Suggestions


oomrs: *
he room. To
berally with
to-San into cl
meeting balls,
pieces, stair


desk top ledges, etc., with a cloth saturated wit
misleading, and by reason thereof the article wa


* When ch
ilets, urinals,
Minto-San. I
others lockers,
and wherever
railings, arm
h Minto-San,'
s labeled so a


of Colorado,
district court
alleging ship-
on or about
quantity of

statements,
pathological
For Using


ildren enter
wash bowls
t *
vaults, telep
r crowds ga
rests on ch
' were false
s to deceive


the
and
acts
hone
their.
airs,
and
and


, mislead the purchaser since they represented that the article when used
i..ected, would be an effective disinfectant; whereas when used as directed,
wbuld not be an effective disinfectant.


T.he article was allege
and consisted partially o
and percentage amount
plainly and correctly on
centage amount of each
fungicidal (bactericidal)
stances or ingredients s


label.
The informat
the Food and I
under that act.


'd to be mis
f an inert s
of said ine
the label;
and every s
properties,
o present t


branded further in


ubstanc
rt subs
nor in
ubstanc
and th
herein


ion alleged that the art
Drugs Act, reported in


e or
tanc
lieu
e or
e to
stat


ingredient, water,
e or ingredient w
thereof were the
ingredient of the
tal percentage of
ed plainly and co


t was a fungicide


an
ere
nan
art
the
rre(


d th
not
e a
:icle
?irne
ctly


e name
stated
nd per-
having
rt sub-
on the


icle was also misbranded in violation of
notice of judgment No. 28328 publslhe
,. n


I


1


v





376


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[ N. J., I. 3.


On December 7, 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 Midland Chemical Laboratories, Inc.. Dubuque,
Iowa, alleging shipment by said company on or about July 1, 1937, from te
State of Iowa into the State of Minnesota of a quantity of Midland Hospital
Germolyptus, which was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of te
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following sta
borne on the drum label, "Germolyptus a reliable germicide, disinfe ,
antiseptic Directions Dilution to make 1% solution 2
teaspoonfuls to 1 quart of water Surgical Instruments 1
Solution," were false and misleading, and by reason of the said statemeat, t
was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they re e
that the article would be an effective diginfctpnt and germicide when us n
1-percent solution and would disinfect surgical instruments when use a
5-percent solution; whereas the article was not an effective dlsinfectan"t"nd
germicide when used as a 1-percent solution and would not disinfect
instruments when used as a 5-percent solution.
The information alleged that the article was also misbranded in violation Of
the Food and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 28330 published
under that act. z
On December 7, 1937, a plea of guilty having been entered, the court impoed
a fine of $50 and costs for violation of both acts.
HARRY L. BRowN, Acting Secretary of Agricedt

1603. Misbranding of Er-Louse. U. S. v. Walter F. Williams and am A
Gregory (Geno Remedy Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fine, $100 and costa.
(I. & F. No. 2018. Sample No. 34058-C.)
This product was misbranded because of failure of the labeling to dec*d
*_ __A _-J-- !-- ~. J .. A' *' .


mnert un mgreuients present.
On November 10, 1987, the United States attorney for the
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
court an information against Walter F, Williams and James
cello, Ill., alleging shipment by salt defendant iider the
Remedy Co., on or about December 26, 1936, from the State


Eastern Disttiet of
filed in the dbbg
4. Gregory. ont 1I-
name of theG
of Illinoisbte


State of Indiana of a quantity of Ex-Louse which was a misbranded insecticide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. xx
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially
substances or ingredients, namely, substances other than sodium fluoride s
phur, and naphthalene, and the name and percentage amount of each inert su-
stance or ingredient present in- the article were not stated plainly sw
rectly on the can label; nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage
of each substance or ingredient of the article having insecticidal proper
the total percentage of the inert ingredteuts present therein stated plain 4
correctly on the said label
On January 15, 1938, the defendants entered pleas of guilty and the
sentenced each to pay a fine of $50 with costs.
HAnr L. BuoWN, Acting Secretary of Agri
1604. Misbranding of Cedar Moth Gas. U. S. v. Cedarway Products Co., Inc.
Abraham S. Korn, Morris Muraskin, and Abraham Muraskin. Plea. of
guilty. Fines, $20. (I. & F. No. 2030. Sample No. 42973--C.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations reg r4-
ing its effectiveness to protect clothes against moths and did not bear a statement
-^^? Ll j~h rfT~lf~i't,^~l-'rf-' a .Sf~TA -Sv~fB'Bi'^ Sr llr- ^-e^V--ii4. MS t Jk-JL h* **f *I^B ': .ii





1601-1635] NOTICES OF JTJJTGMENT 377

reason of the said statementS, it was labeleL and landed so as to deceive and
mislead the purchaser, since they represnted tfati the article when used as
directed, would protect clothes against moths; whereas when used as directed, it
would not protect clothes against moths. It was alleged to be misbranded fur-
ther in that it consisted completely of inert substances which would not prevent,
destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the niame and percentage amount of each
of such substances so present were not stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On April 11, 1938, pleas of guilty having been entered by the defendants, they
were sentenced to pay fines in the total amoUnt of $20.
HABRY L. BaOww, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1605. Mlibranding of Super Deodorant Moth
Chemical Corporation. Plea of guilty.
KKK,, 8 aKSmple No. 20567-C.)


Exterminator.
Fine, $25.


U. S. v.
(I. & F. No.


Crane
2008.


The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its effectiveness to kill moths and their larvae.
On November 16, 1937, the United States attorney for the District of New
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against the Crane Chemical Corporation, Irvington, N. J.,
alleging shipment by said defendant on or about March 6, 197, from the State of
New Jersey into the State of Rhode Island of a quantity of Super Deodorant
Moth Exterminator, which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of
the Insecticide Act of 1910.
bl was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "Will kill moths
and their larvae," borne on the label, was false and misleading and by reason
of said statement, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the pur-
rihaser, since the statement represented that the article when used as directed,
would kill moths and their larvae; whereas it would not kill moths and their
larvae when used as directed.
On December 10, 1937, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the
defendant, the court imposed a fine of $25.
"HAIWY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1606. Mlsbranding of Kotofom. U. S. v. Kotofom Corporation of America.
Plea of gullty. Fine, $5 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2016. Sample Nos.
Qg05Q-C, 33334-C.)
a of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding
its effectiveness in the control of moths, fleas, and other insects; and its effective-
ness as a germicide.
On January 19, 1938, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricultpure, filed in the district
court an information against the WdtofomCrorporation of America, South Bend,
Ind., alleging shipment by said corpratorf in violation of the Insecticide Act
of 1910 on or about September 8 and October 26,1936, from thq State of Indiana
into the State of Wisconsin of quantities of Kotofom which was misbranded.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements in a circular
accompanying a portion of the article, "Kotofom actually kills moth worms in


a upholstery, furniture
the statements in a booklet acco
germicide Kotofom is an ee
cleans Kdtofom is a
S Kottofom 16 to 1 for bath


and other fabrics," an
mpanying the remainder
active germic
n effective: *
ing pet animals, to re


were false and misleading and by reason of the said s
and branded so as to deceive and mislead purchasers
ments represented that the article when used as dir
aoapin~'at o1l mrnth nrnmnai in uublanr itri fiiw n"tirnm n\r n~


d "It kills insects," and
r, "Kotofom is a *
ide. It sanitizes as it
noth preventive *
move and prevent fleas,"
statements, it was labeled
since the several tate-
ected, would tir
o ill n\tham ~:r~lic snjim






378


INSECTICIDE


ACT


jN.LI~T.


1607. Misbranding of Kotofom. U. S. v. Kotofom Corporation of America.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $5 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2025. Sample So.
50303-C.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-
garding its effectiveness to control moths and to kill all insects.
On January 19, 1938, 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 the Kotofom Corporation of America,
South Bend, Ind., alleging shipment by said company on or about August 26,
1937, from the State of Indiana into the State of Wisconsin of a quantity of
Kotofom, which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecti-
cide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Kotofom kils
moth worms in upholstered furniture and other fabrics," and "It
kills insects," borne on an accompanying circular, were false and misleading
and by reason of the said statements, it was labeled and branded so as to deceive
and mislead purchasers, since they represented that the article when used as
directed, would be effective against all moth worms in upholstered furniture 6or in
all other fabrics and would be effective against all insects; whereas the article
when used as directed, would not be effective for the said purposes.
On February 7, 1988, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the
defendant, the court imposed a fine of $5 and costs.
HARY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agrieultr&e.

1608. Misbranding of Scientific Fly Spray. U. S. v. The R. M1. Hollingshezad
Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 1942. Sample No.
46988-B.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its effectiveness to kill flies.
On November 25, 1936, the United States attorney for the District of New
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the d itict
court an information against the R. M. Hollingshead Corporation, Caimden, N. S.,
alleging that on or about February 19, 1936, the said defendant shipped in inter-
state commerce to San Francisco, Calif., a quantity of Scientific Fly Spray which
was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act 6f IT10.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Fly Spray
Kills Flies Scientific Fly Spray is unexcelled for killing flies t *
Directions: To kill flies close doors and windows and spray toward
the ceiling. As soon as the air becomes impregnated with the vapor, the in-
sects will die," borne on the label, were false and misleading and by reason of
the said statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead arg-
chasers, since they represented that when used as directed, it would be effective
for the killing of flies; whereas when used as directed, it would not be effectn'e
for the killing of flies.
On May 23, 1938, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the de-
fendant, the court imposed a fine of $50.


HABRRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


AgriouZlfrsro,


1609. Misbranding of Dead Stuck. U. S. v. Chapman & Rodgers, Inc. Plea
guilty. Fine, $25 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2000. Sample No. 11738:
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading statements regardpg Its
effectiveness against certain insects.
On September 17, 1937, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed n
district court an information against Chanman & Rd lerrs Tno. Phild.&nt.





1601-16351 NOTICES OF JUDGMENT

ments, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser
they represented that when used as directed, it would act as an effective ini
cide against flies, mosquitoes, moths, lice and fleas on persons and animals.
as dogs, cats, horses, fowls, etc.; whereas the article when used as directed,
not effective to accomplish the said purposes.
On January 7, 1938, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf o0
defendant, the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agricultu


379

since
secti-
such
was


f the

re.


1610. Misbranding of Diamond G-C-K Disinf
eal & Supply Co. Plea of guilty. Ni

tng of this product bore false a]
..^. ... .. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ** *^ ^ V W T y ^ ^ -A
garding its effectiveness as a disinfectant,
the proportion of inert ingredients contained t
On October 5, 1937, the United States attox
acting upon a report by the Secretary of
court an information against the Diamond
portion, Wilmington, Del., alleging shipmen
April 8, 1937, from the State of Delaware
of a quantity of Diamond G-C-K Disinfeetan
cide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
The article was alleged to be misbranded
fectant Simply pour four ounces
gallon pail of water. Mop or scrub
sinks, drains, cuspidors, etc. For use as


of G-C-K


and by
deceive
infect d
on the
purposes
that it
percent
plainly
percenia
having
inert su
on the li


to one quart water,


reason of the said state
and mislead the purchase
rains and would act as an
label; whereas the article
when used as directed.
consisted partially of an
ge amount of the said
and correctly on the lab
ge amount of each and


fungicidal
bstance or
abel.


Sbactericidal)
ingredient so


On December 14, 1937, a plea of guilty h
the defendant, the court imposed a fine of $10.
~T~lrA t, T, flnnnvm,. A


' borne on the


ectant.
ne, $10.


U. S. v. Diamond Chemi-
(I. & F. No. 2003. Sample


nd misleading representations
and did not bear a statement
herein.
ney for the District of Delawi
Agriculture, filed in the dist
Chemical & Supply Co., a
t by said defendant on or ab


t Which


the State


ire,
rdct
3or-
out


of Pennsylvania,,


Was a misbranded fungi-


of 1910. .
I in that the statements, "Disin-
G-C-K into an approximate three
floors, baseboards, toilets, urinals,
a1 germicide, add a teaspoonful
label, were false and misleading


ments, it was labeled and branded so as to
er, since they represented that it would dis-
1 effective disinfectant when used as directed
le was not effective to accomplish the said
It was alleged to be misbranded further in
inert substance, water, and the name and
inert substance so present were not stated
el; nor in lieu thereof were the name and
every substance or ingredient of the article
properties and the total percentage of the
present therein stated plainly and correctly


wving


been


entered


otAtma aenrohiMs. n#


.tAflflLbJ. L.A. L.PfltP VV~' tt/vwfly AJL'UI ~ZVtN# jf iS)


on behalf


Agriculture.


1611. Misbranding of Incuhator Fumigant. IT. S. v. Joseph Meyer Rice, Rollie
Theodore Renwald, and Samuel Aaron Rice (Gland-O-Lae Co.). Plea
of nolo contender. Samuel Aaron Rice fined $5. Remaining defend-
ants fined $10 each. Costs assessed. (I. & F. No. 2006. Sample No.
41818-C.)


product


misbranded


because its label


failed


to declare


inert


ingredient present.
Sdptember 30, 1937, the United iStates attorney for the District of
| ting imupon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an. information against the above-named defendants, trading as
Gland-O-Lac Co., Omaha, Nebr., alleging ipment by, said defendants on or
about March 5, 1937, from the State o ebraskj into the State of Illinois,
of a quantity of Gland-O-Lae Ineubator Fumigant which was a misbranded
of-- -.e C. T. tA .1 A k J- -a aa dwar





380


INSECTICIDE


ACT


(N.ii J., U


1612.' Adulteration and misbranding of Chloron-ize. UT. S. v. 9 Cans of Chiloron
ize. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2041.
Sample No. 640-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-
garding the proportion of calcium hypochlorite contaifled therein atdAatsfeN-i
tiveness as a disinfectant and deodorant.
On or about February 26, 1938, the United States attorney for the District
of Oregon, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of nine cans of Chloron-
ize at Baker, Oreg., alleging that the article had been shipped in intgrsate,
commerce on or about December 21, 1936, from Aberdeen, Wash, by theb
Standard Chemical Co., and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement "Oaleim
hypochlorite 5%," borne on the label, represented that the standard andl
quality of the article were such that it contained calcium hypochlorite in a
proportion of not less than 5 percent; whereas the strength and purity of the
article fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold,
since the article contained, calcium hypochlorite in a proportion of less than
5 percent.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "Caleium
bypochlorite" 5%," borne on the label, was false and misleading and
by reason of the said statement, it was labeled and branded so as to deceive
and mislead the purchaser since it contained less than 5 percent of calcium
hypochlorite.


It was alleg
fects *
chlorine in a m
ing: Use 1 oz. (
Rinse is Requirn
in solution of 1
ware, Cooking 4
ators, steam te
leums: Use 1 oz
ize to gallon of
Painted and V
Shower Rooms,
3 oz. Chloron-iz
leading and by
branded so as


1(

i
2
e
o
31
Li


1


to be misbranded


further


L oz. Chloron-ize to gallon
lion parts of solution. For
- level tablespoonfuls) to a
d I. Clean with Chloron-ize (
oz. Chloron-ize to gallon of
r Dairy Utensils, strainers,


)les,


pots,


dippers,


ladles,


that


the statements


*'Disin-


of water provides 200 parts of
Combined Cleansing and Disinfect-


gallon
1 oz. t
water.
mixers


eqmuipm


of water. When a Chlorine
o gallon of water. 2. Rine
Glassware, Dishes, Silver-
paring machines, refriger-
ent, lavatories, floors, lino-


. Chloron-ize to gallon of water. Coffee Urns: Use 2 oz. CJW-ron-
warm water. Rinse thoroughly with water. Sandwich B0ardp,
arnished Surfaces: 1 oz. Chloron-ize to a gallon of water'
Drain Pipes, Garbage Containers, General Deodorizing: 2 to
e to gallon of water," borne on the label, were false and miss
reason of the said statements, the article was labeled andi


deceive


mislead


purchaser


that 1 ounce of the article to 1 gallon of water w
training 200 parts per million of chlorine, that the
disinfect in one operation, that it was an effective
specified and that it would deodorize when used as
of the article to 1 gallon of water would not mak4
parts per million of chlorine, the article would no
one operation, it was not an effective disinfectant in
it would not deodorize when used as directed.
On June 17, 1968, no claimant having appeared,
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting


since


they


represened


iould make a solution eC-
product would clean and
disinfectant in the dilution
directed; whereas ounee
e a solution containing 200
t clean and disinfectant in
Sthe dilution specified, and


judgment

Secretary


of condeiwmtion


Agricuitnra


1613.


Misbranding of Fish Oil Soap and Interstate Special Dust. IT. S. w Inv
state Chemical Manufacturing Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $900 of *hO
$600 was remitted and defendant placed on probation for 18 months.


e





LQ1--1635i


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


381


10,
tity


1937, from the State of New Jersey into the State of New York, of a quan-
of fish oil soap which was misbranded insecticide. .


The articles were alleged to be misbranded inm that the
inert substances, namely, water, in the case of the fish
other than calcium arsenate and monohydrated copper
the Interstate Special Dust, which said inert substances
repel, or mitigate insects or fungi, and the name and
each inert ingredient present in the articles were not


y. consisted partially of
oil soap and substances
sulphate in the case of
do not prevent, destroy,
percentage amount of
stated plainly and cor-


rectly on the labels, nor in lieu thereof were the name and percent
of each substance or ingredient of the articles having insecticidal or
properties and the total percentage of inert substances or ingredie]
therein stated plainly and correctly on the labels. The Special
alleged to be misbranded further in that it was an insecticide other
green and lead arsenate and a fungicide and contained arsenic, an
amount of arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as per centum
arsenic, was not stated on the label.
On December 10, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of th(
and the court imposed a fine of $900 but ordered that $600 thereof be
and that the defendant be placed on probation for 18 months.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Ag


ige amount
Sfungicidal
nts present
Dust was
than paris
d the total
of metallic


Defendant
suspended

ricultwre.


1614. Misbranding of Potash Fish Oil Soap. U. S. v. 5 Drums and 2 Drums of
Potash Fish Oil Soap. Default decrees of condemnation and destruc-
tion. (I. & F. Nos. 2042, 2043. Sample Nos. 11353-D, 11357-D.)
This product contained more water and less potash fish oil soap than declared


on the label.
On March 1, 1938, t
Arkansas, acting upon
district court two libel
Potash Fish Oil Soap i
alleging that the article


he United States attorney for the Western District of
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
s alleging seizure and condemnation of seven drums of
n part at Rogers, Ark., and in part at Springdale, Ark.,
e had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about


February 1 and 9, 1938, from St. Louis, Mo., by Peck's Products Co., and charg-
ing adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be ,adulterated in that the statement, "40% Potash
Fish Oil b'oap, Inert Matter not over 60% water," borne on the label, repre-
sented that the standard and quality of the article were such that it contained
potash fish oil soap in a proportion of not less than 40 percent and contained
water in a proportion of not more than 60 percent; whereas the strength and
purity of the article fell below the professed standard and quality under which
it was sold since it contaihed potash fish oil soap in a proportion of less than
40 percent and water in a proportion of more than 60 percent
It was alleged to be misbranded in that te. aforesaid statements were false
and misleading and by reason of the said statements, it was labeled and
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
On May 25, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgments of condemnation
were entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
.HARRY L. BBowN, Acting Secretary of Agrietlure.

1615. Misbrandilng of Moth-0-CIde. U. S. v. Maurice V. Angel and Harold M.
Lissman (Interstate Drug & Manufacturing Co.). Pleas of nolo con-
tendere. Fines, $50. (I. & F. No. 2021. Sample No. 33398-C.)
This product was misbranded because of false and misleading representations
regarding its effectiveness in the control of moths; and because it was labeled
to indicate that it consisted chiefly of paradichlorobenzene, whereas it contained
only a small amount of such substance.





382


INSECTICIDE


ACT~


[N.J., I.P


Benzene," borne on the can label, were false and misleading and by rason
of the said statements, it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the pn-
chaser, since they represented that when used as directed, it would be effective
against moths under all conditions; and that it consisted chiefly of paradichloro-
benzene; whereas it would not be effective against moths under all conditions
when used as directed, and it consisted chiefly of naphthalene with only a
small amount of paradichlorobenzene.
On December 1, 1937, pleas of nolo contender were entered by the defendants
and the court imposed a fine of $25 against each.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of AgricultUr.

1616. Misbranding of Rex Bathroom Deodorant. U. S. v. Baum's Castorine Co,
Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. No. 2020. Sample No. 20943--)
The labeling of this product contained false and misleading representations
regarding its effectiveness as a germicide, disinfectant, and deodorant; and it
also failed to declare the inert ingredient present in the article.
On November 8, 1937, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,, filed in
the district court an information against Baum's Castorine Co., Inc., Rome, N. Y.,
alleging shipment by said company on or about May 11, 1937, from the State of
New York into the State of Connecticut of a quantity of Rex Bathroom Deo-
drant, which was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide
Act of 1910.


The article was alleged
"Spray small amount into
in all places. Leaves a
fectant," borne on the lab
the article was labeled so
represented that when us
act as a disinfectant, and
used as directed, it would
was alleged to be misbran
substance or ingredient,


to be misbranded in that the following statements,
air with atomizer. It instantly kills all bad odors
pleasant clean odor. Powerful Germicide & Disitn
el, were false and misleading and by reason theIreof
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they
ed as directed, it would act as a germicide, Would
would kill all bad odors in all places; wWres ed
whereas when


not be
ded fur
namely,


effective to accomplish the said
their in that it consisted partial
water, which substance does


pu
yn
no


destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria), and the name and
amount of the said inert ingredient were not stated plainly and c(
the label affixed to the bottle containing the article; nor in lieu th4
the name and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient of
having fungicidal properties and the total percentage of the inert sub
ingredients present therein stated plainly and correct on the label.
On January 13, 1938, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the
and the court imposed a fine of $25.


rpose It
of an inert
t prevent,
percentage
orrectly' on
ereof were
the article
stances or

defe dant


HAnRY L. BuO


1617. Misbranding of Go-Go. TU. S. v.
condemnation and destruction.
The labeling of this product bore false
ing its effectiveness as a fungicide.
On November 29, 1937, the United Sts
of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report b;
the district court a libel praying seizure


at Pittsburgh
merce on or
Products Co.,
1910.
m-ni^/ n f4lnlr


In -


I


WN, Acting Secretary of Agriwttt r&
60 Cans of Go-Go. Default decrete f
(I. & F. No. 2029. Sample No. 40698-e.)
and misleading representations regald6

ites attorney for the Western District
r the Secretary of Agriculture, file hi
and condemnation of 60 cans of Go-Go


, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate u
about October 15, 1937, from Springfield, Ill., by Stark Ohetfi
and charging misbranding in violation of the Insecticide ACt


it ~-


n r ~ c~ Ct I fl 4 fl r a nfl ~ ..... St C fi e~w n es 'n nfl r n n Cl r n nfl. EM


4 .. -w


1 A.. :J *, .


U ~ .. t


1t.


I ~





1601-1635]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


383


would free beer coils from
not be effective to accompli
On January 14, 1938, no
tion was entered and the


bacteria; whereas when used as dir
ish said purposes.
claimant having appeared, judgment
product was ordered destroyed.
HABRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


ected, it would


of condemna-

Agriculture.


161S. Alleged mi
Kenneth
Judgment
On November
of Indiana, action


branding of Cedo-Bloes. U. S. v. Harold Willis Handley and
Edward Handley (Cedar Products Co. Inc.). Tried to the court.
t of not guilty. (I. & F. No. 1943. Sample No. 58113-B.)
27, 1936, the United States attorney for the Northern District
g upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the


district court an information against Harold Willis Handley and Kenneth
Edward Handley, copartners, trading as the Cedar Products Co., Inc., at La
Porte, Ind., alleging that the said defendants shipped from the State of Indi-
ana into the State of Illinois on or about April 11, 1936, a quantity of Cedo-
Blocs that were misbranded.


The information alleged tt
lowing statements borne on t
reason thereof, it was labeled
that when used as directed,
"Cedo-Blocs-for Moths-Bloc
every drawer a cedar chest
need ha? long been felt, *
Moths With Cedo-Bloes. Fo
Every Closet, Drawer and Trn


etc., thoroughly and h:
trunks or closets. Fu
any eggs or larvae tha
The Wrapper Only. Ii
packing trunks or bo:
the articles. Closets
shelves. Unfold the e
illustrated. The air (
all parts of the close
closets be kept tightly
are stored in them. *


ang the
rs shou


the article


was


misbranded


e label were false an
so as to deceive and
t would not furnish
s highly impregnated
* They bring
* How to Obtain


allow these instructions
uink, Clean, brush and be


m in the sun
ild be combe


it may be imbedded
n small drawers two
xes require from th
require from 6 to
nrds of blocks and
circulating in the c
t. It is recommend
closed during the 1
Cedo-Blocs


impregnated with pure Oils o
blankets and other woolen fabri
if instructions are carefully folli
The defendants having entered
trial before the court without a
until February 11, 1938, on whi
judgment finding the defendants
HARRY


Cedar.


d mi
misl
prote
with
you
Utr


Plai
at t


slea
ead
ctio
ced
Mot
uost
ce
he


before placing the'
d with a fine tooth
close to the skin.
blocks are sufficient
ree to six blocks s
24 blocks placed
set them upright ir
lose will carry th4
ed that drawers, b
time that clothing
are scientifically tri


Cedo-Blocs


proi


cs against moths for a pe
owed."
d pleas of not guilty, the
jury on October 11, 1937,
ch date it was concluded.
not guilty.
SL. BROWN. Actina 8ecreta


in that


the fol-


ding and that by
the purchaser in
n against moths:
ar oils that make
h Protection-the
Protection from
a Cedo Chest in
clothing, blankets,
m in the drawers,
i comb to remove
Open One End of
. Large drawers,
separated between
on the floor and
small carton as
e cedar fumes to
oxes, trunks and
and other articles
?ated wood blocks


tect
riod


clothing, furs,
of six months


case came on for
but was adjourned
The court entered


ry of


Agriculture.


1619. Adulteration and misbranding of Lacco Brand Paris Green. U. S. v.
Drums of Paris Green. Default decree of condemnation and destru
tion. (I. & F. No. 1990. Sample No. 9840-C.)
This product was represented to be paris green but consisted of a mixture
pariah green, calcium arsenate, calcium arsenite, and other substances. ]
labeling failed to declare the amount of the arsenic present and the amou
of arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as metallic; and it also failed
indicate the active and inert ingredients in the manner required by the law.


On May 14, 1837, the United States attorney for the Distric
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
* 1hnol nrarQmntr Qaoiqirn anri nnnAnn~ownot-innv nP 11 A...nno .SP nn!c. in,


11
1C-

of
tts
nt
to


t of Arizonn,
district court


iat


h

i
k


t





384


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., L rm


It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the drum, "Paris
Green," was false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser since
it contained arsenic and the total amount of arsenic present, and the amount
of arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as percentum of metallic arsenic,
were not stated on the label. It was alleged to be misbranded further in
that it consisted partially of inert substances or ingredients and the name and
percentage amount of each of such inert substances or ingredients were not
stated plainly and correctly on the drum label, nor in lieu thereof were the
name and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient of the article
having insecticidal properties and the total percentage of inert substances
present therein stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On December 27, 1937, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-


tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
HAnnY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1620. Adulteration and misbranding of Lacco Brand Paris Green. IT. S. v. .LoI
Angeles Chemical Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (I. & P. No. 2017.
Sample No. 9840-C.)
This product was labeled to represent that it consisted of paris green but
it consisted in part of other substances and its label did not bear a statement
of the total amount of arsenic, expressed as metallic arsenic, present.
On November 12, 1937, the United States attorney for the Southern District
of California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
the district court an information against the Los Angeles Chemical Co., a co-
poration, Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about
September 26, 1936, from the State of California into the State of Arizona
of a quantity of Lacco Brand Paris Green, which was an adulterated nd
misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of I |
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement "Paris GreeA?
borne on tbp label, represented that the standard and quality of the article
were such that it consisted of paris green; whereas its strength and parity
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since
it did not consist of paris green but consisted of paris green, calcium arsenate
and other substances. It was alleged to be adulterated further in that ial
cium arsenate, calcium arsenite, and other substances had been substituted In


for the article.
was alleged to be misbranded in that the


on the label, was false and
it was labeled and branded
was alleged to be misbranded
amount of arsenic, expressed
on the label; and in that it
water-soluble form, expressed
on the label.
On December 6, 1937, a ple
defendant, the court imposed
HA


misleading and b
so as to deceive
further in that i
as percentum of
contained arseni
as percentum of


statement "Paris Green," borne
y reason of the said statement;
and mislead the purchaser. It
t contained arsenic and the total
metallic arsenic, was not stated
e and the amount of arsenic int
metallic arsenic, was not state


a of guilty having been entered on behalf of the
a fine of $100.
n'Y L. BuOWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1621. Adulteration and mimbranding of Koobaye, and misbranding of FlorqtI
TT. S. v. National Products Corporation (formerly National Insecticlde
Corporation). No defense offered. Judgment of guilty. Plame p80a
and costs. (I. & F. No. 1890. Sample Nos. 11494-B, .22225-B.)


The labeling
garding their e
tions. One lot
a a A hS


of these products contained false and misleading claims w
effectiveness in the control of insects and other misrepmsen-
of the Koobaye contained false and misleading representatnu
/.,, 4 n A ,a n^^ .j. 42 -.-. a a. A ,


part
It






1601-1635]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


385


One shipment of the said Koobaye was alleged to be adulterated in that its
strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which


it was sold in that it was label
Extractive Materials (including
Tobacco Extractive 'Nicotine' .
Inerts 76.55 pr. ct."; w
barbasco root extractive materi
than 19 percent of oleates, and
ingredients. The said lot was


ed, "Activ
1.97 per
1.65
whereas it
als, less
it contain
alleged to


e Ingredients Activ
ct. 'Rotenone')
pr. ct. Oleates .
contained less thar
than 1.65 percent
ed more than 76.55
be misbranded in


e Barbasco Root
. 2.80 pr. ct.
19. pr. 2t.
S2.80 percent of
of nicotine, less
percent of inert
that the above-


quoted statements on the can label were false and misleading and by reason
of the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the
purchaser.


Both lots of the
uing statements, "D
Vegetable Gardens
Peach, and Pear
gallon 'Koobaye' ac
cient control for
gallon 'Koobaye' a
effective control for
rot, appli
(1 to 50) *
label declaration 01
State Insecticide L


Kooba.
ilution
, Gree
Orchar
[ded to
Cut


dded
*
e *
Thli


a-ice
! coni
abelir


misleading, and deceptive
as directed, would act as
vegetable gardens, greenh4
pear orchards, ornamental
combined with bordeaux
fruits; and that it would
rot, apple scab, blotch, an
quirements of the Federa
directed, would not act
gardens, greenhouses, flo'
orchards, ornamental sh
not be safely used on al


certain
certain
peach-le
did not
Both
following
Beetle,
Crawler


fruits affected
varieties of che
af curl, brown
conform to the
lots of Koobay
Lg statements o
Flea Hoppers
's, Citrus Thrip


per, Dog Fleas, Egg P
* Melon Aphis,
Hopper, Tomato Mite
Beetle, Walnut Husk F
Army Worms, Beet Su
bacco Bud Worms, Cab


Caterpillars,
Worm *
Worms, Gall
Caterpillars,


ye were alleged to be misbranded
Table for the Control of nlusects
n Houses, Flower Gardens, Citr
ds, Ornamental Shrubbery, etc.
100 gallons of Bordeaux Mixture
Vorms Root '*I'aggots


to 100 gallons of Borde
* brown rot *
* scab, blotch, frog
manufacturer guarantees
tents and quality and to
ig Requirements," borne (


in that they
an effective
houses, flower
shrubbery, et
mixture, as


act as an ef
d frog eye, ai
.1 Insecticide
as an active
wer gardens,
rubbery, etc.,
l fruits, but


aux Mix
For pea
eye *
this mat
conform
rn the ca


in that the follow-
Usually Infesting
us Groves, Apple,
* One (1)


mal
* *


ture
ich le
* *
erial
to al
n lab


represented that the arti
control against insects us
gardens, citrus groves, apj


ces a very effi-
One '(1)
makes a very
naf curl, brown
One to fifty
as true to the
.1 Federal and
'el, were false,
cle when used
ually infesting
pie, peach, and


c., cutworms and root maggots, that when
directed, it could be safely used on all


ective control of peach leaf curl,
nd that the article conformed to


whereas


control of
citrus grovi
cutworms,
such use wo


the article


when


insects infesting
es, apple, peach,
or root maggots
aiuld cause serious


brown
the re-


used


vegetable
and pear
it could
injury to


by brown rot, namely, peaches, Japanese plums, and
rries; and it would not act as an effective control for
rot, apple scab, blotch, or frog eye, and the said article
Requirements of the Federal Insecticide Act.
ye were alleged to be misbranded further in that the
n the can label, "For Cabbage and Potato Aphis, Flea
* Citrus Rust Mite, Citrus Aphis, Citrus Scale
p, Onion Thripp, Cabbage Plant Lice, Celery Leaf Hop-
lant Lice, Florida Flower Thripp, Garden Flea Hopper
Strawberry Flea Beetle, Slugs, Snails, Three Cornered
* Tomato Flea Beetle, Turnip Lice, Tobacco Flea
plea, etc. One to one hundred (1 to 75-100) For True


gar
bage


Army Worms, Bean Leaf Roller, Bool Worm, To-
Looper, Cabbage Plutella, Celery Leaf Tyer, Celery


Celery Worm, Corn Leaf Miner, Corn Lai
* Cotton Stainer, Citrus Dog Worms, Dri
Worms, Inch Worms, Beet Web Worms,
Onion Root Maggot Sweet Potato


itf "PtiPi Roan F1i Piltrnc,


ntern Fly, Corn Ear


ll Worms,


Egg Plant


Melon Worms, Okra
Caterpillars, Squash
Whhito Fw *


l


if J





386


INSECTICIDE


ACT


IN. 1., I, .


:Fruit Moth, Woody Scale, Cottony Maple Scale, Tulip or Magnolia Scale,
Gloomy Scale, Scurfy Scale, Elm Scale, Spruce Gall Aphis, Junior Scale, Sai
Jose Scale, Oak Lacanium, Lace Wing Bugs, Oyster Shell Scale, Apple Scurfy,
Terrapin Scale Curculio, Case Bearers, etc. One to Fifty
(1 to 50)," and "For Screw Worm on Cattle," were false, misleading,
and deceptive in that they represented that the article when used as.directed,
would act as an effective insecticide against the above-named insects and would
act as an effective preventive and treatment for screwworms that infest cattle;
whereas the article when used as directed, would not act as an effective inse-ti
.cide against the said insects and would not act as an effective preventing pr
-treatment for screwworms that infest cattle. Misbranding was alleged with
respect to one shipment of the said Koobaye for the further reason that i4
consisted partially of inert substances or ingredients, namely, water and acetone,


and the names and
not stated plainly a
were the name and
article having insec
the inert substances
or at all on the can
The Florote was
borne on the label.


the percentage amounts of the said inert substances were
md correctly or at all on the can label, nor in lieu thereof
percentage amount of each substance or ingredient ofi4he
ticidal or fungicidal properties and the total percentage 0of
or ingredients so present therein stated plainly and correctly
label.
alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements
"Active Inuredients Rotenone Extractive 5% or over con-


trained in Derris & Cube Root, No


contained in Pyrethrun
otine content no mor
Evaporation Process)
deposit not less than
they represented that
extractive in derris
pyrethrum flowers, p
extract of derris dru
sisted of derris resins,


Less than


. .1.97% PyrethrinS, Extra0tive


SFlowers, 'Japanese' 2 .66% Pulverized Tobaceo, Nie-
e than 1.50 percent ... 2 .75% Inerts treated (ry
with 25 percent Extract of Derris Root: 'Rotenonf
. 1.50%," were false, misleading, and deceptive, since
the active ingredients of the article consisted of rotenone
and cube root, pyrethrins, extractive contained i
pulverized tobacco, and inert ingredients treated with
g; whereas the active ingredients of the article con-
cube resins, nicotine, and pyrethrum flower powder. The


said Florote was alleged to be misbranded further in that the following state-
ments in the labeling, (bag) "The manufacturer guarantees this material aS
true to the label declaration of contents and quality and to conform to al
Federal and State insecticide labeling requirements," and (circular) "A duster
adapted to reaching the under side of foliage gives the quickest and most atis


factory results, especially on
'Florote' is of proven efficient
highly recommended for the
families you will
taneous stoppage of feeding
* /'lrtn-' *


pounds of 'Florote'
pounds of 'Florote'


control, *
have been
'Florote' is
all warm-bl


* *


Sto eighty
All of the


insects of the beetle families, *
cy, both in field use and laboratory tests, andt is
control of many species of the beetle and weevil
note with the use of 'Florote' an almost instn-
, the worms or beetles leave the plants to die,
for white mold, blue mold or scab, add twenty
pounds pure flowers of sulphur, a safe and saare
ingredients used in the manufacture of 'Florot?


approved by the U. S. Department of Agriculture* ft
guaranteed by us to be absolutely harmless to human beings and
ooded animals," were false, misleading, and deceptive in that *t


represented that the article conformed to the -requirements of the FederMfl
Insecticide Act, that when used as directed, it would act as an efetweirn-
secticide against all beetles, all weevils, and all worms, that when combined with
flowers of sulphur as directed, it would act as a safe and sure control of fl
diseases of plants indicated by the designations white mold and blue n~c,
or scab, that it had been approved by the United States Department of Ag-
ture for the various purposes claimed in the said circulars and that it as
rllnn c'4n A*l




1601-1635]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


387


whereas it would not kill and would not control
as directed kills and controls, Argentine ants *


beetle,
* *


corn


bill
weevils.


bug;
crane


* citrus rust mite,
worm, diabrotica beetle, *
* Japanese beetle,
footed plant bugs, *


beetles, mealy
pickle worm,
-chafer, *


* red
spotted


I


s, boll worm,
fly caterpillar
* cut '
* European
* lesser
Mediterranean
* onion root r
spider, root web


click


fruit worm, wire worms, whit
4Florote' will control cut and
five parts bran, corn meal or
* 'Florote' dusted on y
pounds of 'Florote' added to
control for cut worms, crane
On December 27. 1937. the


e


beetle,
grubs,


bud worms,
corn flour,
our lawn w
fifty gallon
fly larvae,
defendant


I
'V


*
CO
or!


such insects: "
* aster bee
* cabbage
tton stainer, co
ms, di


corn b
corn s
fly, *
maggot,


worm,


orer,
talk
*
rust


squash vine b
scale
if baited one
with sugar or
ill kill and co
s of Bordeaun
and various r


arraigned


* *


hnrnr


'Florote
ties, app
root mi
rn ear
abrotica
* gall
* *4


oJ e J. ""
* Melon worm
* pumpkin


mite,


* *


orer, *
of mite origin,
part 'Florote' t
* syrup adled
ntrol ants *
x Mixture is a
oot maggots."


having


!' used
le flea
La ggot,
worm,
root
worm,
leaf
, May
bugs,


* rose
tomato
* *


o twenty-
as a lure.
* five
splendid

admitted


*the charges in the information and having failed to show cause why judgment
should not be entered, the court entered judgment of guilty and imposed a fine
of $300 and costs.
HAaRY L. BaowN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


Misbranding of Stero-Oil. U. 5. v.
court. Judgment of guilty. Fine
Sample Nos. 19351-C, 19353-C.)
s product was misbranded because of
labeling regarding its sterilizing an
ure of the label to declare the inert


May


193


California, acting
district court an
San Diego, Calif.
and June 4, 1936,
quantities of Ster
of the Insecticide


The article
appearing on
said statement
chasers since
Staph ylococcus
things named
(One lot, bot
Staphylococcus
only sterilizes


covered
ing lot,
hand-pi
piece ii
"Sterili
lizes *
ute.";
your pE
:Stero-C
brief r


I with


7, the United
upon a report
information ag
, alleging ship]
from the Stat
o-OH, which wa
Act of 1910.


was alleged
the labeling
ts, it was
they repre
aiureus in
therein; wh
tie and ca
aureusoin
the Exterio


I to be
g were
labele
sented
1 minus
ereas 1
rton)
One m
r but t


Sterile Products
, $100 and costs.


Co. Tried to
(I. & F. No.


false and misleading r
d germicidal properties
ingredients present in


States attorney for the South'
by the Secretary of Agricultu
aiust the Sterile Products Co.,
ment by said company on or
e of California into the State
is a misbranded fungicide with


misbranded iL
false and mi
d so as to
that when u
'te and that it
t would not be
"Stero-Oil *
minute according
he Interior as


n that t
leading,
deceive


the
1980.


epresentati4
s and becal
the article.
rn District
e, filed in 1
a corporate
bout April
if Colorado
x the mean


he following statements


and
and


by reason of the
mislead the pur-


sed as directed, it
would sterilize the
effective for the sa
* Sterilizes *
g to Bacteriological
well, leaving the w


would kill
objects and
id purposes:


* *
Tests.
working


a measured amount of high-grade Germicidal Lubricant"


bottle) "Stero-Oil *
pieces, Sterilizes *
1 Stero Oil after work on
zes contra a
S* Burr chuck *
(both lots, circulars) "Kil


itie
)il,
eri


.nts.


Recent bacteriolo


Sterilizes contra and r
sticking of burr chuck Run
each patient for sterilizing purposes";
nd right angle hand pieces *
* Kills Staphylococcus Aureus in
Is Staphylococcus aureus in one minute
gical research has developed an impro


resulting in the killing of Staphylococcus Aureus in the
od of one Minute. One of the leading bacteriological
id-nAl Cdnrtrno l~rnn n..nnif~rfnA *hif ra rannnn f\v 1n.. braAmn n iv^ itvrl,


rn
la


ight
the
; (ca
*


Kills
Not
parts
smain-
angle
hand-
rton)
Steri-


Sone min-
. Protect
vement in
remarkably
boratories
*rn..flfl i n


* *


1622.

This
in the
.of fail
On


tJ





388


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., LZ


harbor for bacteria. For proper care of the handpiece and protection ot
patients against infection, old oil, saliva, grit, etc., must be removed, and the
interior, as well as exterior, sterilized before using it on a patient. To sterilize
the exterior without sterilizing the interior does not relieve the hadpliece
of its natural harbor of bacteria and consequently greatest danger of infectffii.L
Improved Stero Oil sterilizes the interior as well as exterior of hand pieces.
In One Minute, with one bottle and in one operation old oil, grit, saliva, etc.
is removed from interior working parts, a measured quantity of new, ~h
grade, germicidal oil is supplied, the interior as well as exterior of the hand-
piece is sterilized with a germicide that Kills the virulent Staphyloceeos
Aureus-All In One Minute. You owe One Minute to each patient as a guar-
antee against infection. The angle hand piece is now sterilized, prop-
erly lubricated with a germicidal lubricant, cleaned, perfumed and surgically fit
for use. Sterilization however is complete at the end of One Minute
according to bacteriological tests. As a means of sterilization, the
straight handpiece should be run in Stero Oil for a minute after finishing work
on each patient. and you will have the satisfaction of knowing that
you are doing the utmost possible to protect your patients from infection."
The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially
of inert substances or ingredients, namely, mineral oil derivatives, including
petroleum ether and lubricating oils, and the name and the percentage amount
of such inert ingredients were not stated plainly and correctly on the labels;
nor in lieu thereof were the name and the percentage amount of each sB-
stance or ingredient of the article having fungicidal properties, and the total
percentage of the inert substances or ingredients present therein stated plainly
and correctly on the labels.
On July 14, 1937, the defendant having pleaded not guilty and having waived
a jury, the case came on for trial before the court. At the conclusion of
evidence introduced on behalf of the Government and the defendant, the court
entered judgment of guilty on all counts. On July 16, 1937, a fine of $100, plus
costs, was imposed.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Seoretary of Agriculture.


1623. Misbranding of Hoyt's Fly Spray. U. S. v. Hoyt Bros., Inc. Plea O
guilty. Fine, $100. (I. & F. No. 1978. Sample No. 15426-C.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-
garding its effectiveness in the control of flies, bedbugs, and certain other
insects.
On June 11, 1937, the Uniited States attorney for the District of New Jersey
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the distlt
court an information against Hoyt Bros., Inc., Newark, N. J., alleging shbipmeit
by said company on or about September 14, 1936, from the State of New
Jersey into the State of Pennsylvania of a quantity of Hoyt's Fly Spray, Which
was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of
1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statement
"Hoyt's Fly Spray Kills Flies Close windows and doo


spray
be en
until
on th
room
Spra3


upward. A few
lough for a small
room is filled wit
e floor discontinue
to air. *
mattress on boti


the springs and bed cl
will kill all bed bugs E


ii


minu
room
misi


tes strenuous spraying toward the ceiling 0xoNI
, larger rooms in proportion. Continue pr
. When flies and mosquitoes begin to drop de


Sand keep room closed for 15 minutes, after which ppe
Bed Bugs-Spray in all cracks and crevices of be
sides forcing liquid into the tucks and folds, also spay
thing. Wherever Hoyt's Fly Spray is use ft
nd their eggs. And Crawling Insects-FNdO


I


t


I*





1601-1635]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


389


On December 10, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
and the court imposed a fine of $100.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


Misbranding of Ineub
Inc. Plea of guilty.
28697-C.)


This produ
ingredient pre
On June 23
Pennsylvania,
district court
at Myerstown
February 2 ai
States of New
Fumigant, wt


Insecticide Act
The article w
inert substance


ct was
?sent.


ator


misbranded


Fumigant.


Fine, $50.


because


U. S. v. Whitmoyer Laboratories,
& F. No. 1992. Sample Nos. 27232-C,


its label


failed


to declare


the inert


, 1937, the United States attorney for the Middle District of
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, tiled in the
an information against the Whitmoyer Laboratories, Inc., trading
, Pa., alleging shipment by said -company in part on or about


nd Fel
7 Jersey
ich w


bruar.
\y an
as a


of 1910.
as alleged
or ingredi


19, 1937, from the State of Pennsylvania into the
d New York, respectively, of quantities of Incubator
misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the

to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of an
ent, water, that is a substance that does not prevent,


destroy, repel, or mitigate insect


inert substan
thereof were
of the article
substance or
label.


On
and t


, and the name and percent


amount of such


ce were not stated plainly and correctly on the label; nor in lieu
the name and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient
having insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert
ingredient so present therein stated plainly and correctly on the


October 18, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
he court imposed a fine of $50.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1625. Adulteration and misbranding of


Foodudrink


Fertilizer


(I. & F. No. 1994. Sample
The Nodew bore on its label
; ingredients and its effective<


it would hav(
use. The An
proportion of
On July 27
setts, acting
trict court a
bridge, Mass
and Februar
Florida of q.
fungicide anc


t


Co..


been injurious to C
ipestick contained
inert ingredients t


Inc.


Nodew and Antipestick.


Plea


of nolo


Nos. 16158-C, 22489-C.)
false and misleading
ness in the control a
certain vegetation on
a smaller proportion
han declared.


contender.


U. S. v. The


Fine, $10.


representations regarding
of mildew. Furthermore,
which it was intended for
of nicotine and a larger


, 1937, the United States attorney for the District of
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
n information against the Foodndrink Fertilizer Co.,


y
u
1I


Massachu-
n the dis-
Inc.. Cam-


, alleging shipment by said company, on or about January 25
25, 1937, from the State of Massachusetts into the State of
entities of Nodew and Antipestick, of which the former was a
the latter was an insecticide within the meaning of the Insecti-


cide Act of 1910, and both were adulterated and misbranded.
The Nodew was alleged to be adulterated in that it was intended for use on
vegetation and- when used thereon as directed, certain substances contained
therein would be injurious to such vegetation on which it was intended for use.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Active Ingredients
Sulphur not less than 30% Potassium carbonate not less than 60% Inert
ingredients not more than 10%," borne on the label, were false and misleading
aid by reason of-the said statements, it was labeled so as to deceive and mis-
lead the purchaser since they represented that the active ingredients of the
article consisted of sulphur and potassium carbonate; whereas its active in-
gredients consisted.of potassium polysulphide and potassium thiosulphate, and
the nanasinm carhonate present therein was an inert ingredient. It was al-


1624.


(





390


INSECTICIDE


ACT


The Antipestick was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements "Active
ingredients: Nicotine, not less than 40% Inert ingredients 60%," borne on the
label, represented that its standard and quality were such that it contained
not less than 40 percent of nicotine and not more than 60 percent of inert in-
gredients; whereas its strength and purity fell below the professed standarit
and quality under which it was sold, since it contained less than 40 percent
nicotine and contained inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 60 perezint.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted statements, bornei p
the label, were false and misleading and by reason of the said statements, it
was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchasers, since it contained
less than 40 percent nicotine, and more than 60 percent inert ingredients.
On November 9, 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 Agris it re.


1626. Misbranding of Lucky Strike Dust and Lucky Strike Garden Spray.
v. William C. Parrott (The Parrott Chemical Co.). Plea of
Fine, $30. (I. & F. No. 1945. Sample Nos. 70540-B, 70541-B.)
The labeling of the Lucky Strike Dust bore false and misleading repre
tions regarding its effectiveness as an insecticide and fungicide and other


representations. Its label and that of the lot of
by the case, failed to declare the inert ingredients
On November 1, 1937, the United States attorney


cut, acting upon a report by the Secretary
court an information against William 0. Par
Co., Stamford, Conn., alleging shipment by
30, 1936, from the State of Connecticut
quantities of Lucky Strike Dust and Lucky
former was an insecticide and fungicide


Garden
present
for the


of Agriculture
rott, trading as
said defendant
into the State
Strike Garden


the latter


$jflr,


esenta-
r mif-


Spray, also covered
in the articles.
District of Coinnect-
h, filed in the district
the Parrott Chermidel
t on or about Maeth
of Pennsylvania bf
Spray, of which the


was


an insecticide


within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910, and both of which were fis
branded.
The Dust was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Rotenone
Pyrethrum Sulphur For General Garden Dry Dusting Complete Insecticide
and Fungicide," and "Lucky Strike Dust is especially adapted for use "i con-
trolling: Squash, Melon and other Vine Insects Wee~viS.
infesting Strawberries, Peppers, Cranberries and certain other vegetables a
fruits. Safe.," borne on the package labels, were false and misleading and fy
reason of the said statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mis-
lead the purchaser since they represented that it would act as a complete insect-
cide and fungicide and as a general garden dry dust; that when used as directed,
It would act as an effective insecticide against squash, melon, and other ve
insects and against all weevils that infest strawberries, peppers, cranberries, and
certain other vegetables and fruits; that said article was nonpoisonous; wheras
it would not act as a complete insecticide and fungicide nor as a genetal
garden dry dust, it would not be effective against the said insects and weevflA
infesting the plants named when used as directed, and it was not non-
poisonous.
This article was alleged to be misbranded further and the garden pr1y
also was alleged to be misbranded in that they consisted partially of inert sb-
stances or ingredients and the name and percentage amount of each inert Suftb-
stance or ingredient were not stated plainly and correctly on the labels of the
packages and bottles containing the articles; nor in lieu thereof were the naple
and percentage amount of each ingredient of the articles having inset
or fungicidal properties and the total percentage of inert substances of in-
gredients present therein stated plainly and correctly on the said labels
-n_ k- a a~jh j-i ^ .aa a m1J Af 1 ... W '*II-:... *'/ t-~






1601-1635]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


391


shipment


by said


defendants


on or about


November 7,


.California into the State of Arizona of a quantity of
Acid, which was an adulterated insecticide, other t
arsenatee, within the meaning of the Insecticide Act


The ai
bolic Ac
carbolic
another
acid.


article was alleged to be adulterated
id," borne on the label, represent
acid: whereas it did not consist
substance, mineral oil, had been su


in that
d that i
solely o
bstituted


1936,


from


the State of


McClellan's Crude Carbolic
han paris green and lead
of 1910.
the statement "Crude Car-
t consisted solely of crude
Crude carbolic acid, but
in part for crude carbolic


On
defen


February 9, 1938, a plea of nolo contender having been entered by the
dants, they were sentenced to pay fines in the total amount of $50.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1628.


Misbranding of


Aph-is-ite.


U. S.


Fine. $26 and costs. 1I. & F. l
The labeling of this product bore false


ing
O
0
of
dist
ing


its effective
n November
Vashington,
ricet court at
shipment b:


from t
Is-Ite,
cide A<
The
*Contro
Directi
on the
Red Si
and m
1brande
that w
bugs;


ness ag
29, 1
acting
i infor
r said


he State of
which was a
ft of 1910.
article was


ainst
37, t
upon
mati(
defei
shin
lisbra


alleged


lied with Aphisite


ons for
Inbel of
)ider, M
isleading
d( so as
hen used
whereas


general us
each lot o
enaly Bugs.'
Sand by
to deceive
as directed
when uses


red spider
he United S
a report by
)n against H
Idaut on or
rton into the
ended insecti


v. Harry N. Leekenby. Plea of guilty.
No. 2013. Sample Nos. 29554-C, 29562-C.)
and misleading representations regard-


nd mealy bugs.
states attorney f(
the Secretary of
arry N. Leckenb
about April 20,
State of Orego
cide within the


to be misbrandedl


* *


e Three
if the arti
' borne in
reason of
' and mis


Red Spider
teaspoonful
cle, and "A
a circular
the said
lend the pt


in that


s
phl
1)1)
sh
st(
Ur


the Western D
agriculture, filed
Seattle, Wash.,
936, and May 1.
of quantities of
leaning of the Ii


the statements,


* Mealy Bu
to one quart of w
is-Ite For Control
dipped with one lot
atements, it was
chaser, since they


it would he effective against red spider
as directed, it would not be effective


spiders nor mealy bugs.
On February 17. 1938. a plea of guilty having
the court imposed a fine of $26 and costs.


HARRY


L. BROWN


AU


district
in the
alleg-
1937,
Aph-
nisecti-


"Insects


igs
water b
of *
, were f
labeled
represe
s and m
against


**
orne
* *
false
and
nted
ealy
red


been entered by the defendant,

ing Secretary of Agriculture.


1029.


Misbranding of Menderth for Hungry Soil. U. S.. v. 350 Bags of Menderth
for Hungry Soil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
(I. & F. No. 1996. Sample No. 12315-C.)


The labeling of this product did not declare the name and percentage
of its inert ingredients and bore false and misleading representations
its effectiveness to control the corn borer. the corn-ear worm. and plant


On July 1.
acting upon a
libel pravinw
Soil at Bosto
commerce on
nnd charging
The article
Ingredients ai
amount of th
alleged to be
Inr were fals


1937, the United State
report by the Secreta
seizure and condemn
n, Mass., alleging tha
or about May 14. 193
misbranding in viola


was al
nd its I
te iner
misbra
n


e a


leged
abel
tI- ing
nded


T
attorn
'of A


.ic
tl
f
or


to be
did no
redient
further


iey for the
agriculture.


Distr
filed


)n of 350 bags of I
e article had been
rom Rumford. Mnin
i of the Insecticide
nded in that it consi
a statement of the
the fact that they
mt the following stn


d mislending and were designed to dec


r
r


ict of Massn
in the district
lenderth for
shipped in i
e. by Mende
Act of 1910.
isted entirely


amounts
egnrding
disease es.
chusetts,
t court a
Hungry
interstate
rth. Inc.,


of


name and percent
were inert. It
tements in the ci
eive nnd mislead


nert


tage
was
rcu-
the


m


m m





392


INSECTICIDE
INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N 3., I,


Menderth; and when the corn approaches maturity
the silk also with Menderth to guard against the
If not checked, ear worms may .cause more damage
the product would not be effective against the corn
ear worm; "Menderth is not an insecticide, but inse
not stay where they come in contact with it. Use it
ing purposes," whereas the product would not keep


Dexter
destroy
quality
directed
indicate
On A


wrote


follows:


'Menderth


overcome


and the silk appears; dis
ravages of the ear wizt
than the borer," where
borer or against the cft
cts do not like it and ?ill
freely and often for duit-
insects away; "Mr, Ot.
e the diseases that ere


ng the perennials-and in the vegetable garden, has given a vigor and
we could not obtain without it,'" whereas the use of this product as
, would not overcome the diseases of perennials and vegetables t6


d.
pril


1938,


Menderth,


Inc.,


intervenor,


having


withdrawn


claim and answer, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product war
ordered destroyed.


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture,


1630. Adulteration and misbranding of To-Na-Cide. U. S. v. Roman J. Irwin
(To-Na-Cide Sales Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $30. (I. & F. No. 208(.
Sample Nos. 43555-B, 9549-C.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading statements regarding
its effectiveness to control certain insects. One lot contained a smaller ja-
centage of naphthalene and a larger percentage of inert ingredients than


declared on the
On March 2,
of New York,
in the district
To-Na-Cide Sal


label.
1938,
acting
court
es Co.,


the United States attorney for the
upon a report by the Secretary of
an information against Roman J.
New York, N. Y., alleging shipment


Southern District
Agriculture, flle&
Irwin, trading a*
by said ddfendint


in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910 on or about August 28, 1985, 8n
August 10, 1937, from the State of New York into the States of Rhbte IsJadn
and New Jersey of quantities of To-Na-Cide, an insecticide that was mis-
branded, and one lot of which was adulterated.
One lot 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, "Naphthalene 75.00% Inert Ingredients 24.80%," whereas it con-
tained less than 75 percent of naphthalene and more than 24.80 percent oi
inert ingredients. The said lot was alleged to be misbranded in that theb-
statements "Naphthalene 75.00% Inert Ingredients 24.80%" were false and
misleading and by reason thereof, the article was labeled so as to deceive an?
mislead the purchaser.
Both lots were alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements
borne on the bag label were false and misleading and by reason of the sqid
statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser
"To-Na-Cide For the Greenhouse or Garden For Control of Insects follow
instructions enclosed," since the said statements represented that the article
when used as directed would be effective against all insects; whereas wbex
used as directed, it would not be effective against all insects. Both lots wepr
alleged to be misbranded further in that certain statements contained in culars enclosed in the bags were false and misleading and by reason of suc
statements, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers sie
the statements represented, that (1) one lot would save plants; would 41 al
bugs infesting plants; would be effective against all insects in a flower gar
vegetable garden, and greenhouse; would help plants grown in a flower r
vegetable garden, and greenhouse in their fight against insect pests; worin
effective against bugs; would kill insects in the soil such as thrips, c






1601-1635]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


393,


effective


to kill thrij
on dahlias,
(2) that th
to kill insect
and rose m
fly, red spid
crops such
vegetable pl
tion, "etc.";
be effective
tive against
and would
rose bugs,


to control


3S
gl
e
?ts


all insects


and worms; would
adiolus, iris, and d
article in the other
in the soil, such as


which


infest


potted


plants;


would


be effective


be effective against thrips iu the field, insects
elphiniums, and would check red spider; and
lot, when used as directed, would be effective
thrips, cyclamen mites, earthworms, sowbugs,


lidge; would control other insects such as Japanese beetle, white
ler, and aphis; would be effective to kill all other insects on outside
as gladiolus, delphiniums, roses, asters, field-grown carnations,
ants, and all other plants that might be included under the abbrevia-
would kill insects in the soil that attack the roots of plants; would
to save plants and kill all bugs infesting plants; would be effec-
t all insect pests; would protect plants against all insect pests


~1
gIL


thrips, sowbugs,


,event
idiolus


eart


infection c
thrips; w
hworms, cy


)f pl
would
clam


ants or bulbs; would be
be effective for treating
ten mites, millipedes, red s


effei
soil
pidei


active against
infested by
r, aphis, rose


midge and manure worms; would be effective to control all insects which infest
potted plants; would be the most satisfactory insecticide to kill insect pests in
the soil; and would be an effective preventative and repellent for all insects;
whereas the article would not be effective to accomplish the said purposes.
On April 13, 1938, a plea of guilty having been entered by the defendant,
the court imposed a fine of $30.
HARRY L. BaOWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1631. Misbranding of Quadine.


UT. S. v. 8 Dozen Cartons of Quadine.


decree of condemnation and destruction.


57542-C.)
The labeling of thi
ing its effectiveness
parasites.
On January 31, 19
cut, acting upon a r


(I. & F. No. 2034.


I


Default
Sample No.


is product bore false and misleading representations regard-


in the treatment


of dog


mites,


38, the United States attorney for
report by the Secretary of Agricu


court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 8
training 6 bottles of Quadine, at West Hartford, Conn.
had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about


Toledo, Ohio,
Insecticide Ac
The article
"For *
Mange," (circ
coats. *
causes of poor
glossy coat
mites, *


by the Allen


t of 1910.
was alleged
Dog Mite
ular) "Mang
* Quadine v
skin or coat.
of hair if
* and other


effective treatment
all forms of mang
the said purposes.
It was alleged to
as set forth in not


for
e or


charging


will


be misbranded
* All
* and
be found a ui


Any norma
sprayed witi
skin parasite


all varieties
other skin


fly
I
I
25,


of dog
parasite


misbra


in that
Insects
mites are
seful aid


mange,


other


skin


* the District of Connecti-
lture, filed in the district
dozen cartons, each con-
, alleging that the article
November 30, 1937, from
ending in violation of the

the statements, (carton)
* All Forms of
common causes of poor
in treatment of external


healthy dog should have a
Quadine weekly. *
' represented that the artic
mites, for all varieties of ii
es; whereas it was not efl


beautiful,
for dog-
le. was an
sects, and
activee for


be misbranded also in violation of the Food and Drug Act,
ice of judgment No. 28990 published under that act.


On April 18, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


condemnation

A tiostture.


1682.


Misbranding of No-Moth Solid and No-Moth Solid Refill.
ages of No-Moth Solid Refill and 11 Dozen No-Moth
decrees of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F.
Sample Nos. 57587-C, 57588-C, 17201-D.)


U. S. v. 81 Paek-
Solid. Default
Nos. 2083, 2045.





394


INSECTICIDE ACT


[N. J., L.


The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "Net Weight
14 Ozs.," borne on the packages containing the cakes, was false and misleading
and by reason of said statement, they were labeled and branded so as to deceive
and mislead the purchaser since the cakes contained less than 14 ounces.
On March 16 and April 28, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgments of
condemnation were entered and the products were ordered destroyed.


HAnuY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1633. Adulteration and misbranding of Pine Disinfectant No. 600. U. S. v. it M.
Hollingshead Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 1989.
Sample No. 37227-C.)


This product possessed a phenol coi
trained an inert ingredient in excess o
of the declared volume.
On May 19, 1937, the United States
acting upon a report by the Secretary
an information against the R. M. H
alleging shipment by said defendant
State of New Jersey into the State of
infectant No. 600, which was an adul
the meaning of the Insecticide Act o:
The article was alleged to be adulte
Inert Matter: Oil not exceeding 35%,'
standard and quality were such that it
than 2 and that it contained oil as an


efficient lower than that declared, it con-
f the amount declared, and it was short


attorney for the District of New Jersey,
of Agriculture, filed in the district court
ollingshead Corporation, Camden, N., J.,
on or about August 31, 1936, from the


Pennsylvania of a quantity of Pine Dis-
terated and misbranded fungicide within
f 1910.
rated in that the statement "Coefficient 2
' borne on the label, represented that its
; possessed a phenol coefficient of not less
inert ingredient in the proportion of not


more than 35 percent; whereas the strength and purity c
the professed standard and quality under which it was
a phenol coefficient much lower than 2, and contained o
an inert ingredient in a proportion much greater than
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement
"Coefficient 2 Inert Matter Oil Not exceeding "
3.785 Litres," borne on the label, were false and mislea
the said statements, it was labeled so as to deceive
chaser, since they represented that it consisted of pin
possessed a phenol coefficient of not less than 2, that
inert ingredient in the proportion of not more than 35
cans contained not less than 128 fluid ounces or 3.785
not consist of pine disinfectant but consisted of a mif
fectant and mineral oil; it possessed a phenol coefficien
i. e., not more than 1.1 when tested by the F. D. A. met
than 35 percent of oil; and the cans contained less thai
On May 23, 1938, a plea of guilty having been entered
court imposed a fine of $100.


f the
sold,
i, 1.
35 p
ts, "P
35d%"
ding


article fell below
since it possessed
e., mineral oil, as
percent.
'ine Distnfeetant,"
and "128 FI. Ozs.
and by reason of


and mislead the pur-
ie disinfectant, that it
it contained oil as an
percent, and that the
litres: whereas it did
xture of pine-oil disin-
t of much less than 2
hod; it contained moe
n the amount declared.
1 by the defendant, tk


HARRY


L. BROWN,


Acting


Secretary


Agriculture,


1634. Adulteration and misbranding of Lucky Strike Fungicide and Lueky
Strike Garden Spray; misbranding of Lucky Strike Combination .ar
Roses, Lucky Strike Rotenone Dust, and Lucky Strike Cow Spray.
IU. S. v. William C. Parrott (The Parrott Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty.
Fine, $100. (I. & F. No. 1951. Sample Nos. 8092-C, 8093-C, 809-,
70542-B.) :
The labeling of the Fungicide, Garden Spray, Combination for Roses, and Cow
Spray bore false and misleading representations regarding their effectiveness to
control plant diseases or insects, or both. The identity or proportion oft
active or inert ingredients of the Fungicide, Garden Spray, and Rotenpne Dust
was not declared, or was incorrectly declared, on their respective labels. In


I
L
L






1601-1635]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


395


Roses, Lucky Strike Rotenone Dust and Lucky Strike Cow Spray which were
misbranded insecticides.
One lot of the Lucky Strike Fungicide was alleged to be adulterated in that
the statements borne on the label, "Active ingredients: Metallic Copper 4%
Nitrogen as Ammonium Salts 2% Inert Ingredients 94%," purported and repre-
e at the standard and quality ot the article were such that it contained
copper, expressed as metallic copper, in a proportion of not less than 4 per-
cent and that it contained inert ingredients in a proportion of not more than
94 percent; whereas the strength and purity of the article fell below the pro-
fessed standard and quality under which it was sold since it contained copper
expressed as metallic copper, in a proportion less than 4 percent and it con-
taied minert ingredients in a proportion greater than 94 percent. This lot was
alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted statements were false and
misteading and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled and
branded so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since they represented that it
wt d copper, expressed as metallic copper, in a proportion of not less than
4 percent; that it contained inert ingredients in a proportion of not more than
W pe^ent, and that nitrogen as ammonium salts was an active ingredient;
whe3esns St contained copper, expressed as metallic copper, in a proportion less
than 4 percent, contained inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 94
percent, and nitrogen as ammonium salts was not an active ingredient .of the
article.


Ih other lot of Fungicide was alleged to
ments, "Active Ingredients: Metallic Copper
2% Inert Ingredients 94%," borne on the lab
y soh of the said statements, the article
deceive and mislead purchasers,; since they
udiv&ugredients metallic copper in a propo
nitrogen as ammonium salts in a proportion


be misbranded in that the state-
4% Nitrogen as Ammonium Salts
el, were false and misleading and
was labeled and branded so as to
represented that it contained as
hrtion not less than 4 percent and
not less than 2 percent, and that


it contained inert ingredients in a proportion not more than 94 percent; whereas
it contained copper only as an active ingredient, metallic copper in a propor-
tion less than 4 percent, and inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 94
percent. .


Both
the stat
is neces
certain
cide *
of gra


Spray *
ter 4 Oz.
lot, and
against
with the
against
infection


lots of the Fungicide
ements, "Fuingus Dise
sary to have a thin
fungus spores," borne
* It controls fun
*r flna f


wern
cases :
film
in the
gus d


alleged to be misbranded further in that
* To control this type of, disease it
of material on the foliage which will kill


labeling
senses su
32 Oz
pint wa
lions fini
Combina
* These


of both lots,
ch as *
.-Makes 32
ter 2 Teaspoo
shed spray." i
tion offers
materials w


afford
Black


Spot


a


user


Rust


lso, wh
Lucky
B
and s


"Lucky St
* black r
Gallons
nsful to 1
in the labe
Complete
then mnixe
complete


en spra
Strike
y using
ucking


other


rike Fungi-
ot *
Finished
Gallon wa-
ling of one
protection
d together
protection


forms


ying to control
Garden Insect
the 2 products
insects will be


i


e "/U Q Ul d L
1 Teaspoonful to 1
makes approximately 4 ga
"Lucky Strike Rose
* *


specified


LJLrtl .1'Ce
amour


* disea
are controlled


Fungus Diseases,
Spray together w:
together a satisf;


we s
ith Lu
factory


nt of
Thus
*


water
mildew,


To kill insects


using
*
sewing


strongly recommend
cky Strike Fungicide
kill against both cl


obtained," in the labeling of the other lot, 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 control all fungous diseases of plants, would control black rot of grapes,
would offer complete protection against diseases, would control all other forms
nf infpootion nnr would aot as an effective inseticide when used with the Oar-


U


I ~ b* I.


?
I:





396


INSECTICIDE


ACT


(N. J., L ..


(Garden Spray) "Inert Ingredients: Water 5% Resin 32%," since it reaje-
sented that the inert ingredients of the article consisted of water and resin aild
that it contained water in a proportion of not more than 5 percent, whereas
the inert ingredients of the article did not consist of water and resin but it
water and inactive pyrethrum extractives, and it contained water in a propor-
tion greater than 5 percent; the statements, "Garden Spray kills Plant Insects
both chewing and sucking bugs-worms Ants Beetles ete. J*
Spray Chart dilution 1-200 For Mealy Bugs Etc. Dily n
1-400 For Aster Beetle, Cucumber Beetle, Rose Chafer, Cut Wp~,
etc. Dilution 1-600 For Etc.," since they represented that the ate
when used as directed, would control all plant insects, all chewing and sucking
bugs, worms, ants and beetles, and would act as an effective inseqti4a 4anst
mealy bugs and all other insects that might be included under the abbreviation,
"Etc."; whereas when used as directed, it would not be effective to accomplish
the said purposes; and the statements, "Non-poisonous Garden Insect Spray"
and "Safe Non-Arsenical Insecticide the use of poisonous insectiddes
is no longer necessary the complete combination of non-poisonous
insecticides as it is non-poisonous," since they represented that the
article was non-poisonous, whereas it was not non-poisonous.
(Combination for Roses) "Lucky Strike Rose Combination offers complete
protection against insects In the Lucky Strike Rose Combinatc
Kits the grower is offered for the first time the complete combination of m-
poisonous insecticides afford the user complete protection against
* as well as the actual killing of insects The insect kiltng
properties take in both the chewing and sucking varieties of insects," "KTills
* caterpillars Kills insects by first spraying, such as *
rose chafers, aster beetles, For Rose Delphiniums, Holly-
hocks, Etc. Kills-Chewing and sucking insects both by contact and thru
stomach," since they represented that the article when used as directed, would
act as an effective insecticide and control against all insects, would afford
complete protection against all insects, would kill all caterpillars and ~would
act as an effective insecticide against rose chafers and aster beeties, *ltere
when used as directed, it would not be effective to accomplish the said
purposes.
(Rotenone Dust) "Rotenone Dust," since it represented that the article
consisted of rotenone dust; whereas it did not consist of rotenone dust but
of powdered derris root, sulphur, pyrethrum powder, and china clay.
(Cow Spray) "Kills Flies When Spraying for Horn Flies on
Cattle In starting Spray mornings and evenings before milking. After doing
this for 3 or 4 successive days, then number of sprayings may be reduceS
somewhat and still produce results Our tests show that when used as direted
Lucky Strike Cow Spray will kill flies that are enveloped in the mist *
when Spraying Horses Spray thoroughly when necessary and in extreme
cases cover horses with blankets immediately after spraying to localize the
fumes, Kills Mites," since they represented that the arti-
cle when used as directed, would act as an effective insecticide against all
varieties of mites that infest livestock and for killing flies that attack or
annoy cattle and horses; whereas when used as directed, it would not be
effective to accomplish the said purposes.
The Rotenone Dust was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted
partially of inert substances or ingredients, that is, substances other than


derris rosins,
percentage am
cle were not
names and pe


sulphur, and powdered pyrethrum flowers and the name d
ount of each and every inert substance or ingredient of theti-
stated plainly, and correctly on the label; nor in lieu. ot he
rcentage amounts of the inert substances or ingredieptgr, wee





1601-1635]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


397


1635. Adultery
of G d
tion.
This produce
than stated on
On June 1,
Pennsylvania,
district court
Fish Oil Soap


ition and misbranding
S0 Fish Oil Soap. De
(I. & F. No. 2055. Samp
t fell below its declared
the label.
1938, the United Star
acting upon a report b;
a libel praying seizure
at Jenkintown, Pa., a


in interstate commerce on or about May 5,
Goulard & Olena, and charging adulteration
the Insecticide Act of 1910.


of G & 0 Fish Oil Soap. U. S. v. 40 Cans
fault decree of condemnation and destrue-
le No. 29806-D.)
standard because it contained more water


tes attorney for the Eastern District of
y the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
and condemnation of 40 cans of G & O
alleging that the article had been shipped


1938,
and


from New York, N. Y.,
misbranding in violation


The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement "Inert
Ingredients-Water Not Over 50%," borne on the labels, represented that its
standard and quality were such that it contained an inert ingredient, water,
in a proportion of not more than 50 percent; whereas its strength and purity
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since
it contained water in a proportion of more than 50 percent.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the said statement was false and


misleading and by rea
deceive and mislead the
On June 23, 1938, no


son thereof, it was label
purchaser.
claimant having appeared,


ed


branded


judgment of condemnation


was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

l1l 11112il 02 1 11tH1 1111 li 1U 1 In
3 1262 08582 4825


INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1601


-1635


Antipestick:
Foodndrink Fertilizer Co.,


Aph-is-ite:
Leckenby, H.


N.J.No.


Inc....


N ------------


Carbolic acid:
McClellan, C. U----- -----
McClellan, C. U., Laboratories
Corporation ------- -. -
Cedar Moth Gas:
Cedaway Products Co., Inc...
Korn, A. S .-.--...- -----


Muraskin, Abraham


Muraskin,
Cedo-Blocs:


Cedar Products Co.


Handley, H.
Handley, K.
Chloron-ize:


Dead


- -------
- -

Inc --


w ,-- -- --
W--------- --


Standard Chemical Co----
Stuck:


Chapman & Rodgers,


------ -


Diamond G-C-K Disinfectant:
Diamond Chemical & Supply Co_
Ex-Louse:


Geno


Remedy


Gregory, J.
Williams, W
Fish oil soap. 8e


Co- ---_ --


A-- --- -- --- -
.e'- ---- -
e Soap.


Florote:
National Insecticide Corp
National Products Corp -.--.
Formaldehyde spray:
Huntington Laboratories of
Colorado, Inc--.. ---.


Go-Go:
Stark Chemical P
Hoyt's Fly Spray:
Hoyt Bros., Inc_.
Incubator Furllgant: ,
Gland-O-Lac Con-
Renwald, R. T_.
R ce Id R .....ni
Rice, S. A --.
Riice, Se. A:-.- --.
Whitmoyer Labor
Interstate Special Dust:


Interstate
during


Chemical


products Co--




-tories, Inc-
-II IIIIK-I IIIII-II m m -


Manufac-


Co ----_____


Koobaye:
National Insecticide Corp--....
National Products Corp -.--
Kotofom:
Kotofom Corporation of Amer-
ica------------ --- 1606


Lacco Brand Paris Green.


See Paris


green.
TmLnky Strike Cnnmbinntinn for Rops :


1625

1628

1627
1627

1604
1604
1604
1604
11618
11618
1 1618

1612

1609

1610
1603
1603
1603


1621
1621

1601

1617

1623

1611
1611
1611
1611
1624


1613
1621
1621

1607


Lucky Strike-Continued.
Dust:
Parrott Chemical Co.


Parrott,


W. C----


Fungicide:
Parrott Chemical Co-


Parrott,


W. C -----


Garden Spray:
Parrott Chemical Co-


Parrott, W.
Rotenone Dust:
Parrott C$


. C----


N. J. No.


.-- 1626


----


S- -


- ----


1626
1634
1634


1626, 1634
1626,1634


Lemical Co-----..


Parrott, W. C --------
McClellan's Crude Carbolic Acid;


McClellan, C.


- -- -


U------


McClellan, C. U., Laboratories
Corporation ----.....
Menderth for Hungry Soil:
Menderth, Ine----_--
Midland Hospital Germolyptus :
Midland Chemical Laboratorte
Inc- ----.--- --- ------ --


Minto-San Mint Formaldehyde Spray :
Huntington Laboratories of


Colorado,
Moth-O-Cide:
Angel, M.


Interstate
turning


Ine--....-
-M -~jj -md -^ t -f -P^ ^K.


Drug
Co -


Lissman, H. M__


No-Moth Solid:
Solid Refill:
Reefer-G
Nodew:


aller,


1634
1634


Th2'r


1627
1629


1602


1601


-. .. 1615
Manufac-
---- 1615
1------615


Inc... -


1632


Foodndrink Fertilizer Zn&
Paris Green, Lacco Brand:


Los Angeles Cheminica


Pine Disinfectant No. 600:
Hollingshead, R. M.,


Co_ 1619,1620


Corpora-


vii on -- - ----- -


Quadine:
Allen


Co~ ----- ------- ---- -


Rex Bathroom Deodorant :
Baum 's Castorine Co.. Inc-- 1616


Scientific Fly Spray:
Hollingshead,


tion ...------ .


Soap, fish oil---
Interstate
turning
G & O:


Chemical
Co---.....--


4oulard & Olena ---
potash:
Peck's Products Co-
Stero-Oil:


., Corpora-
- ----


Manufac-
- -
- -------
-. -


Sterile Products Co--------
Super Deodorant Moth Exterminator:


A'-.'.. nfl n


flhn,~.4nn 1


*~ a n.j IT' trn.flnhltjaI


C ornoration_


1633


1631


1608


1613
1635


1614
1 1622
1605


:**