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:
AA00008549:00031

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text


1 .C, 161-1710
"." ifI. F. 1691-17"10


Issued January


1940


r~ ~, I.


al tq

d k(Ii~J.
(t VHF


-- --
...-.. .t A
I.
*1
-
* H A


United


'States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


t
[Given pursuant to section 4'of the Insecticide Act]
1691-1710


.the Acting Secretary of Agriculture,


Washington, D. C., October


ACT


25, 1939]


ending of Dr. Thompson's Dry. Blainfectant and Insectielde. U. S.
E -Thowninson Co. Plea of nhlo Fontendere. Fine $50. (1. & F. No.


9TZ7 Samplte;'No. 5338-C.) .
Sing'of this product bore false' and"misleading representations re-
urauiinfretant, antiseptic, and germicidal properties and its effective-
lContfiol 6f moths, lice on poultry and livestock, and other insects.
fr 9, 1937, the United States attorney for the Western District of
t= heting upon a report by the. Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
qprt an information against A. W. Thompson Co., a corporation, Prairie
IrWis.; alleging shipment by said company on or about October 19,
th.the State of Wisconsin into the State of Minnesota of a quantity
KiBjsdz's Dry Disinfectant and Insecticide, which was a misbranded
e and fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
'd':wa a alleged to :be misbranded in that the following statements
4We libel affixed to the pails containing it, "Dry Disinfectant *
,3rmicide, Disinfectant Directions Use a general disin-
., by sprinkling or spraying. the powder in the stalls and
nd sleep. quarters of live stock," "Insects, moths, etc., may be rid


"i.g the powder
;pne.part of the
mixture under the
,ive: stock, use
teoL the. animals,
," an4, "To get


on hides, furs, etc.," "As a Louse Powder for
insecticide with one part of wood ashes and
feathers of all lousy poultry. As a louse powder
full strength and sprinkle the powder on the
-parting the hair or wool and rub in thoroughly
rid of all kinds of insects on plants, etc., mix


part
d by
mis-
ected
nfect
acted,
theirr
rould


4ii. -.@mgsqu's.. Dry Disinfectant and Insecticide with one
as~g& lae, on the pla 1." were false and misleading an
s.a eaid.sta tements the articles W. labeled so as to deceive and
Neri inr they ,repesented that the article when used as dirn
winfectant, an antiseptic, and g.- germicide; that it would disi
D .a"d4 sleeping quarters of ivestock; that, when used as dire
.,an.. f,..ie ins.ecticide againpht|,.ll insects, moths, and all. <
*ght .incluatle under th. i plreviation "ete."; that it w


Sha t.. e cs
wj| used as
imat a.er.b


petive ~Lr.S:for. lice
.p .: .e.e insecticided
directed, it would not
20* WS& *a 3e, at nolo


on poetryy and all.
e aga~ $, all insects
be effective for such
) cont.edere was ente


other livestock, and
on plants; whereas
purposes.
red on behalf of the


m r m n


r





442


ThTSJjIiJTJCIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


On
acting
court
at Boi
merce
Cedar
of 191
The
inert
destroy


May 25, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Idaho,
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 65 packages of Cedarettes
se, Idaho; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate cornm-
on or about September 19, 1938, from Salt Lake City, Utah, by the
ette Co.; and charging misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act


0.
article was
substances
y, repel, or


alleged to be misbranded in that
(substances other tha cedar oil)
mitigate insects, and, the name an


it consisted partially of
which do not prevent,
d percentage amount of


such inert substances or ingredients Vresent were not stated plainly and cor-
rectly on the package label; nor in lieu thereofwere the name and percentage
amount of each substance or ingredent of the article having insecticidal
properties, and the total percentage of the inert substances or ingredients
present stated plainly and correctly en the package label. Further mis-
branding was alleged min that the following statements were false and mis-
leading, and by reason of said statements the article was labeled so as to
deceive and mislead the purchaser, sin& the statements represented that the
article when used as directed, would prevent moths and would rid houses of
ants; cockroaches, ahd bedhogs; whereaswhen used as directed, it would not
prevent moths and would not rid houses of ants, cockroaches, and bedbugs:
'Cedarettes Moth Preventative Directioas Place in small cheese cloth bags,
PIlace under cushions and in deep pa of overstuffed sets, trunks, dresser
drawers, pockets of clothing, undernea bangers in clothes closets. Sprinkle
underneath rugs. Will also rid your e of ants, cockroaches and bed bugs.
Directions: For ants and cockroaches, sprinkle where infested. For bed
bugs, sprinkle on top of mattress and whbre infested."
On June 21, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
fAlnx L. BRows, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1693. Aulteration and misbranding of Fonnrmacide. IT. S. v. 96 Cans of Forma-
eide. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2128.
Sample No. 65640-D.)
This product contained a smaller proportion of paraformaldehyde and a
larger proportion of inert ingredients than those represented on the label.
On May 3, 1989, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
Florida, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
trict court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 96 cans of Formacide
at Tampa, Fla.; alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate com-
merce on or about November 3, 1936, from Beacon, N. Y., by Hammond PNint
& Chemical Co.; and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, name


"Analysis (at the time packaged) : Paraformaldehyde, 6%; Inert IngreG-
ents, 94%," since it contained less than 6 percent of paraformaldehyde and
more than 94 percent of inert ingredientas
Misbranding was alleged in that the label statements, "Analysis (at ibe
time packaged': Paraformaldehyde, 6%; Inert Ingredients, 94%," were false
an misleading, and by reason of the said statements, the article was labeled
And branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained
lesst thbn,6 percent of paraformaldebyde and more than 94 percent of inert
ingredients.
On Lime 20. 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation


44


**,


-





1691-1710]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


443


Defiance Sweeping Compound at Plant City, Fla.; alleging
been shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 1,
Ga., by Midway Chemical Co.; and charging misbranding
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it c


inert substances or ingredients, i. e., substances
repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria), and the name


inert substance
correctly on the
amount of each
tericidal) proper
dients present st


or ingredient present therein
drum label; nor in lieu thereof
substance or ingredient of the
ties, and the total percentage o
ated plainly and correctly on t


which
and pe
were
were t
article
f the i
he labe


that the article had
1939, from Atlanta,
in violation of the


insisted


entirely


do not prevent, destroy,
rcentage amount of each
not stated plainly and
he name and percentage
having fungicidal (bac-
nert substances or ingre-
1l. Further misbranding


was alleged in that the label statement "Disinfects and Purifies" was false
and misleading, and by reason of said statement the article was labeled and
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it would not disinfect
and purify.
On June 19, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.


HARRY L.


BROWN, Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1695. Adulteration and misbranding of D-D Disinfectant.
Bottles of D-D Disinfectant. Default decree of
destruction. (I. & F. No. 2119. Sample No. 37358-D).


U. S. v. 10 Gallon
condemnation and


This product contained a
the:active ingredient, and a
on the label. Its label also
infectant, germicidal, and s
,On March 23, 1939, the U
toting upon a report by the
a libel praying seizure and c
at Lexington, Nebr.; allegi


smaller proportion of sodi
larger proportion of inert
bore false and misleading
terilizing properties; and
united States attorney for
Secretary of Agriculture,
ondemnation of 10 gallon b
ng that the article had b


Lum hypobchlorite solution,
ingredients than declared
claims regarding its dis-
other misrepresentations.
the District of Nebraska,
filed in the district court
ottles of D-D Disinfectant
een shipped in interstate


commerce on or about November 19, 1938, by the United Chemical Co. from
Kansas City, Mo.; and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the
Insecticide Act of 1910.
- 1!he article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since it was
labeled: "Active ingredients: Sodium Hypobchlorite not less than 51/4%. Equiv-
alotttooapproximately 5% available chlorine. Total inert ingredients 94-3/4%";
whereas it contained less than 5% percent of sodium hypochlorite, less than
5 perent of available chlorine, and more than 94% percent of inert ingredients.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted statements were
false land misleading and by reason of the said statements it was labeled so
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser since it contained less sodium hypochlo-
its, less available chlorine, and a larger proportion of inert ingredients than
delkred.
* Mibranding was alleged further in that the following statements borne on the
bIttle label and contained in the booklet shipped with the article, "Dakin's Solu-
tios Prepare from D-D. Use one part of D-D to 8 parts of water. The resulting
solution will contain one-half percent available chlorine. (Dishes used
by patients suffering from contagious or infectious diseases should be left in the
sterilhing rinse at least 5 minutes.) Dishes: To kill bacteria and make
sfatfe-flll rinse tank with D-D solution. 3 oz. to 5 gallons warm water, 100 to
10 lP-leave dishes in solution at least two minutes. Remove and allow to
drain and dry. Whenever contagious diseases are prevalent-colds,
flth Pnoinnfmnll *pp-ui-mlhop uohnial ho lra- in tha cfcilavsmrr lmnaa at lannft n


*I






444


INEECCICl ACT


IN.J.,I. E


following class. Leave the rooms closed f few minutes after spraying whe-
ever possible---the number of living germs t floating in the air will be greatfy
reduced. Follow a similar plan in spray auditoriums Of all kinds. Reduge
strength of disinfecting solution to 3 oz. D-f to each gallon of water if
to be sprayed while occupied. The Ohlorinset free into the air not only heljs to
kill the germs in the air, but also the germsa the throats and respiratory passages
of the persons in the room. N. B. Sufficifnt .D-D solution must be sprayed to
definitely moisten the air. Work Wables and Floors: First clean. Then
to deodorize and disinfect, rinse with D-D solution, 3 oz. to 5 gallons water.
* D-D about Soda Fountains: cups, glasses, ice cream dishes and other
utensils about soda fountains should always be rifised, first in clear water and
then in D-D solution, 1% to 2 oz. JDD in each five gallons rinse water. The rinse
water should be changed 2 or 3 times per day or even more often; according to the
number of dishes to be rinsed. If syrup jars have a capacity of 10 gal-
lons or more, thoroughly spray interiors with a D-D solution, 3 oz. to 5 gallons of
water. Then take the same strength solution and flow through the pipe lines into
the bottler. Bottles for Table Waters: Treat to kill bacteria: Wash as
usual, then rinse in D-D soluition--3 oz. in 5 gallons water. Draih the bottIles and
they are ready for use. Prepare 25 gallons D-D rinpe for every 1,0U
* Every time the drinking tanks are cleaned, they should be thbroi
rinsed with D-D solution--three ounces of D--D to each five gallons of water 'is
sufficient if the job of rinsing is done thoroughly. (a) Rinsing: This
method is satisfactory where only a few utensils are to be treated. Prepare two
to three gallons of D-D solution-1 tablespoonful of D-D to a gallon of water.
Disinfect the utensils by rinsing thoroughly; pour the solution from one vessel to
the other. Allow at least one minute for each article. Keep ice cream
ladles and spoons standing min D-D solution instead of plain water. Use 1 table-
spoonful D-D to each gallon of water, and change water several times daily. The
small amount of D-D used will not be sufficient to give any taste to the food, but
on the other hand it will aid greatly in preventing the multiplication of noxious
bacteria. Draw the D-D solution from the bottler and use it for disin-
fecting tables, floors, drains, etc. Drain the solution from the bottler
and use it to disinfect floors, tables, drains, etc. Any disinfectant to be
used in connection with Dairy products and other food products must be non-
poisonous and essentially odorless. D-D has been prepared and per-
fected as a special offering to creameries, dairies, butter factories, and Produce
Houses, D-D is non-poisonous. It has been determined that 85 per-
cent of the bacteria in milk comes from the ptensils, cans, buckets, strainers, sepa-
rators, milking machines, coolers, etc.," 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 it would make Dakin's solution and that
the resulting solution would contain one-half percent of available chlorine; that it
would sterilize and destroy all bacteria, purify the air, would kill germs in the
air or in the throat and respiratory passages of persons in the room and wold
significantly reduce the number of disease germs in the air; that it was an effec-
tive disinfectant in the dilutions specified; that it would disinfect drains, tables,
floors, ete., when used a4 directed; that it was nonpoisonous, and that 85 percent
of the bacteria in milk comes from utensils, cans, buckets, strainers, separators,
milking machines, coolers etc, whereas the article when diluted as directed
would not be Dakin's solutk. a aw the resulting solution would not contain 1 per-
cept of available chlorine; 4 woqed not sterilize and would not destroy all bac-
ria; would not purity te #i it would not kill germs in the throat or air or
in the respiatory passages of pliersons in the room and would not significantly
N,- :": f f.-... -._... K.- L Ft -_ 1 -- -_ fl *_ _.






1691-17103


NOTICES


On February 11, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of


acting upon a report by
an information against t
Colo., alleging shipment
State of Colorado into I
Lotion, which was a mis
Act of 1910.
The article was alleg
ments were false and


labeled anC
purchasers,
would effec
whereas the
and would
quito Lotto
odor of the


thu
.he
: b$
the
bra


e Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dist
C. D. Smith Drug Co., a corporation, Grand
7 said company on or about May 5, 1938,
State of Utah of a quantity of Hy-Grade
ended insecticide within the meaning of the I


ed to be mi
misleading.


I branded so as to dece
since such statements
lively repel mosquitoes a
Article, when used as dii
not ward off mosquitoe
n Hy-Grade Mosquito I
lotion is higi


from alighting near


to the face,
application
Further
inert subst
stances do
percentage


surfaces


neck, hands,
will ward off
misbranding
ances, name
not prevent,
amounts of s


stranded


in tha
reason


ive and misli
represented
Ld would wa
reacted, would
s several hoi
Lotion is effe
hly obnoxious


impregnated


with


ankles and exposed pa
Smosquitos several ho
was alleged in that
y, substances other t
destroy, repel, or mil
such inert ingredients


t the following
of said state
purchasers and
when used as
ff mosquitoes se
effectively repea
"Hy-Grade *


dtive as a mosquito


s to mosquitos,


lotion.


rts, r
urs."
the
bhan
rigate
were


ubbing in well


Colorado,
rict court
Junction,
from the
Mosquito
insecticide


label


state-


ents it was
prospective
directed, it
veral hours;
I mosquitoes
* Mos-
scare. The


preventing them


Directions


Apply


* One


article consisted partially of
oil of citronella, which sub-
Sinsects, and the names and
* not stated on the label; nor


in lieu thereof did the label bear a statement of the name and percentage amount
of the ingredients having insecticidal properties and the total percentage of
inert ingredients present.
On March 8, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and
the court imposed a fine of $20.


HARRY


L. BROWN,


Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1497. Misbranding of D L Germicide. U. S. v. 15 Pints of D L Germicide. Default
decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2109. Sample No.
45689-D.)
SThe labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its phenol coefficient and its effectiveness as a sterilizer.


On January 25, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western L
Michigan, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fil
.district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 15 pints
fnneide at Grand Rapids, Mich.; alleging that the article had beei
in interstate commerce on or about October 8, 1938, from Dayton,
Dayton Laboratories, Inc.; and charging misbranding in violation of tl
Side..Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following la
pients were false and misleading, and by reason of said statements t
,.asiabeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, s
M44tements represented that the article had a high phenol coefficient a
*pi B.gnlize surgical instruments, hypodermic syringes, needles, gloves, etc.
:i .414. not have a high phenol coefficient and would not sterilize surgic
u~g, hypodermic syringes, needles, gloves, etc.: "Germicide *
Liquid Germicide Having a High Phenol-Coefficient. Does not effe
ments in any way and assures positive sterilization of surgical ins
-hypodermic syringes, needles, gloves, etc. Directions for Use
entst must be thoroughly cleaned before placing in the solution for ste
Hypodermic needles should be carefully flushed with the solution bef4
iwo nand than flnahlad oanin nrith alonhnl hofnorn .ieca Tnatlr,-nuon a c


districtt of
ed in the
SofD L
n shipped
Ohio, by
ie Insecti-


bel state-
he article
lince such
nd would
; whereas
al instru-
* A
ct instru-
truments,
lInstru-
rilization.
wre wash-
ihn1lrl ha


OF JUDGMENT


"1





446


IINSECTICIDE ACT


[N. w


1698. Misbranding of Monogram Brand Mosquito Lotion, Death-SSppraylr,
Bugine Liquid Spray. U. S. v. R yal Manufacturing Co. pof DfUqWfle
Plea of guilty. Fine, $900. (I. & F No. 2086. Sample Nos. 8758-fD, 879-
21692-D.)
The labeling of Monogram Brand Mosquito Lotion failed to indicate
presence of the inert substance in the article. The Death-Spray and BEuin
Liquid Spray were both misbranded because of false and misleading represeta-
tions in their labeling regarding their effectiveness against flies, and false ant
misleading representations that they were 100-percent effective insecticides.
On January 12, 1939, the United States. attorney for the Northern Distic
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed i
district court an information against Royal Manufacturing Co. of Dunqtesnd M
corporation trading at Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment by said defendant r
about March 18 and May 18, 1938, from the State of Illinois into the Stte o
Indiana and Michigan of quantities of the above-named products, which" were
misbranded insecticides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of lfr1.
The mosquito lotion was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted
tially of inert substances, namely, water and alcohol, which do not
destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and did not have the names and pe
amounts of such inert ingredients stated on the label; nor in lieu thereof w0er
the name and percentage amount of each ingredient of the article having insecti-
cidal properties, and the total percentage of inert ingredients present the
stated on the label.
The Death-Spray and Bugine Liquid. Spray were both alleged to be
branded in that the following statements borne on the bottle labels, (e
Spray and Bugine Liquid Spray) "Flies Close windows And doS
and spray upward in all directions, filling room full with vapor. UTY
100 shots with a good hand sprayer, and more shots for larger roomS, s
restaurants, etc. Keep room closed for 10 minutes," and "100% Active," were
false and misleading and were borne on the labels so as to deceive and misled l
the purchaser, since they represented that the articles when used as di~egt
would be effective against flies and that they were 100-percent effective insecti-
cides; whereas when used as directed, they would not be effective aiats<
and were not 100-percent effective insecticides.
On June 6, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of thedefendant
the court imposed a fine of $900.
HAn n L. BRowN, Acting Becretar'y of Agriculture.
1699. Misbranding of Formaldehyde Germicide. U. S. v. Cheptlinto
Laboratories, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $30. (I. & F. No. 2079. Sample
No. 16479-D,)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its effectiveness as a sterilizing medium, and also failed to indicate the
presence of the inert substance, water, which was contained in the article. ,
On December 7, 1938, 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 Cheplin Biological Laboratories, In, 8uon
cuse, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about March 11 938,
from the State of New York into the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity of
~ "* *'^' / "^ */"* "'**- n |v
Formaldehyde Germicide, which was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following label statements
were false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements it was labeled
and branded so as to mislead and deceive the purchaser, since such statements
represented that it was a sterilizing medium and would be effective against
arnna. and ardT -rnV rxthoronaa ft mHa n at utoriinr nTrwd1rtm nnI WniMI Tint






1691-1710]

containing the
of each and
(bactericidal)
therein stated
On December
and the court


1700.


Adultery
matesl
and co


This produce


JUDGMENT


447


article; nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amwxt
every substance or ingredient of the article bkhag timgiei a
properties, and the total p ge ef e inerlsubstance preet
plainly and correctly on t"e b.he
r 16, 1938, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
imposed a fine of $30.
HARRY L. BaOWN, Acting Ser"ln of Ag
Agw!u.
tion and misbranding of Bean DDist*tfectnt. IU. S. v. The Phar-
t Drug Co., Inc. (Drug Prodnuctis Co.) Plea of guilty. Fine, $200
sts. (I. & F. No. 2070. Sample No. 32210-D.)
t contained water as the inert ingredient in a larger nronortion


than that declared on the label.
leading representations regarding i
On October 13, 1938, the United
of Ohio, acting upon a report by
district court an information against
Ohio, alleging shipment by said de


Co., on or about 1
gan of a quantity


a rch


Moreover,
ts disinfec
States at
the Secre
t the Phar
fendant in


~~0


its
taut
torn
tary
maft
the


labeling bore false and mis-
properties.
ey for the Southern District
of Agriculture, filed in the
est Drug Co., Inc., Columbus,
name of the Drug Products


1938, from the State of Ohio into the State of Michi-


of Benaco Disinfectant,


branded fungicide within the
The article was alleged to b
below the professed standard
"Inert Ingredients 90% Water,
in a proportion of more than 9
Misbranding was alleged in
Water" was false and mislea


article was labeled and branu
since it contained water as t1
90 percent. Further misbrand
ments were false and mislead
was labeled and branded so a
article would not disinfect
bowls, etc., when used as dire
Sick Rooms, Hospitals, Instit
quantity in saucer and place
few drops and allow to stand
* On December 5, 1938, a plea


which


meaning of the Insectici
e adulterated in that its
and quality under which
" since it contained water
0 percent.
that the label statement
ding, and by reason of


an adulterated and


le Act of 1910.
strength and purity fell
h it was sold, namely,
as the inert ingredient

"Inert Ingredients 90%
the said sta-temeut the


led so as to deceive and mislead the
ie inert ingredient in a proportion of i
ing was alleged in that the following Ii
ing, and by reason of said statements 1
s to deceive and mislead the purchaser,


homes,
acted: "
utions,
in roon
a shor
of guil


sickrooms, hospitals, insti
Disinfectant For
Closet Bowls, etc. To use
a where needed, for closet
t while before flushing."
ty was entered on behalf of


and the court imposed a fine of $200 and costs.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting


Secretary


purchaser,
more than
abel state-
:he article
since the


tutions, closet
use in Homes,
place a small
bowls put in a


the defendant,


Agriculture.


1701. Adulteration and misbranding of Lead Arsenate Spray No. 3; misbranding
of Lethane No. 4 and Sulphur No. 2. U. S. v. Thomas W. Pickard (Nu-
Way Chemical Spray Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs. (I. &
P. No. 1988. Sample Nos. 77611-B, 77615-B, 77617-B.)
The Lead Arsenate Spray No. 3 contained smaller proportions of lead ar-
inate and anhydrous soap and a larger proportion of inert ingredients than
represented on the label; it contained arsenic, but the total amount of arsenic,
and the total amount of arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as percentage
of metallic arsenic, were not stated on the label; and its label bore false and
misleading claims regarding its effectiveness as an insecticide. The labeling of
the Sulphur No. 2 bore false and misleading claims regarding its effectiveness
in the control of mildew and spot and other misrepresentations. The Lethane
No. 4 was labeled to indicate that it consisted of lethane; whereas it consisted
of aDDroximately 31. percent of lethane. the remainder consisting princially of


FOfIRES OF


i


I


t





448


&INSECTIOIDE


ACT


[N. J., LP.


which was a misbranded fungicide. The Lethane No 4 was labeled: "Lethane
No. 4 1%6 Ozs. Net when packed. Sur ntro for the following insects, pests,
and the likes Mealy Bug, Red Spider Eidge, Thrips, Aphis, White Fly, and
Armored Scale. No mixing or mes simply lip this cartridge into the
cylinder, attach to the hose and turn w the ater and you are ready
to spray. Active ingredients: Lethane S%, Anhydrus soap 59%, Inert ingredi-
ents 10%. Note: Always remove cartridge fronm cylinder when through splaying,
place back in the container to dry out. Nu-Way Chemical Spray Co., 106
N. Nelson Road, Columbus, Ohio."
The Lead Arsenate Spray No. 3 wa alleged to be adulterated in that its
strength and purity fell below the profssefd standard and quality under Which
it was sold, namely, "Lead Arsenate 50%, Anhydrus Soap 38%, Inert ingredients
12%," since it contained less than 50 pe~rent of lead arsenate, less than 38 per-
cent of anhydrous soap, and more than 12 percent of inert ingredients. It was
alleged to be misbranded in that it contained arsenic, and the to*g
arsenic, and the total amount of arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as
percentage of metallic arsenic, were not stated oh the label. It was alleged to
be misbranded further in that the following statements in the labeling were
false and misleading and by reason of the said statements, it was labeled so as
to deceive and mislead purchasers, since it contained less than 50 percent of
lead arsenate, less than 38 percent of anhydrous soap, and more than 12 percent
of inert ingredients and when used as directed, would not act as an effective


insecticide against the insects named: "Lead Arsenate 0%, Anb


7dru


Inert ingredients 12% Lead Arsenate Spray No. 3 For
Shrubbery, Vegetables, Gypsy Moth, Brown Tail Moth, Elm Leaf B'
Worms, Potato Bugs and Bag Worms. It is very simple to use;
messing. Merely slip this cartridge into the cylinder. Attach t
hose and you are then ready to spray."
The Lethane No. 4 was alleged to be misbranded in that the fol
ments in the labeling were false and misleading and by reason


]
(


I
!


Soap 38%,


Fruit Trees,
eetle, Tomato
no mixing or
o the garden
lowing state-
of the said


statements, it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers since it did
not consist solely of Lethane No. 4 but did consist of lethane, soap, and water,
the cartridge weighed less than 1%9 ounces and the article when used as
directed, would not act as an effective insecticide against the insects named:
"Lethane No. 4 1%e Ozs. Net when packed Sure control
for the following insects, pests, and the like: Mealy Bug, Red Spider, Midge,
Thrips, Aphis, White Fly, and Armored Scale. No mixing or messing, simply
slip this cartridge into the cylinder, attach to the hose and turn on the water
* and you are ready to spray. '
The Sulphur No. 2 was alleged to I misbranded in that the following label
statements were false and misleading and by reason of the said statements, it
was labeled so asto deceive and misle4 purchasers since anhydrous soap was
not an active ingredient, i.e., it would not: act as a fungicide, it contained more
than 4 percent of inert ingredients, and when used as directed, it would not act
as an effective control for mildew and spot: "Active Ingredients: *
Anhydrus Soap 26%, Inert ingredients not more than 4% Sulphur No. 2
* Fungicide Cartridge For the Control of Mildew and Spot Spray the
same as for insects by inserting this cartridge in a cartridge cylinder. If
necessary, repeat in a few days, however, one spraying is usually enough."
On December 5, 198, a plea of guilty was entered by the defendant and the
court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.
: aRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


inn


M. Msbrandinx of Permacedar Kennel Bedding. U.


S. v. Twenty-four 5-Pouand






1691-1710]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


449


commerce
Ohio; and
The arti
borne on
Natural E
fleas, lice,
Cedar Oil,
repellent t
nel Beddi]
** V
inches dee
a mattress
Other Ani
Canaries
The aroma
and Pigeo


on
ch
icd
th
ne


Sor about January 28,
barging misbranding in
e was alleged to be m
e labels of the bags,
my' Directio


willow
Place
pel lic
nests
ng u
Bedding


1989, by Yoho & Hooker from Youngstown,
violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
isbranded in that the following statements
"Permacedar Kennel Bedding 'The Flea's
ns Household Pets can be kept free from


etc., only when the beds on which they sleep are repellent to vermin.
* so abundant in Permacedar Bedding, is recognized as a natural
o all insects, Permacedar Bedding makes a superior Ken-
ng for dogs, cats and other pets, because it makes a


er
Vp.
5
na
ang

Is


min-repellent


Renew
ade of
Pets S
Other
*
Place i


* Permacedar


flies


be


when
burlap
tuff a p
Birds
will re
n the
Beddi


* Permacedar


* Moth Dama


folds, 'in sea
but repels t
on the floor
by reason of
mislead the
directed wou
and all inse
natural repel


ms, legs and
he flying mot
and hang in
the said stat


purchaser in


ld keep
cts inel
llent to


dogs,
uded
all in


I
I


to Clothin,


irms
h an
bags
emen
that
cats,
unde]
sects


ogs


Cover


* For
Permacedar


the floor


long h
Bedding


with the Permacedar Beddi
the bedding in the both
*e and other vermin *
of the poultry houses. I
sed in the stable *
ig used in the stable *
g Sprinkle the Permaceda


of garments.
d prevents cc
in all closets
ts, the article
they represent
and other pet


)
,


Permacedar doe
intact with cloth
" were false an<


was labeled so as
ted that the article
animals free of fl


aviationn


"etc.";


used as direct


that
ed it


from


four


aired dogs, stuff
. For Cats and
ng, For
om of the cage.
* For Chickens
t will repel lice
helps repel
* kills odors
r liberally in the
!s not kill moths,
uing. Place loose
I misleading and


to deceive and


e when
eas, lice,
cedar
would r


and all other vermin on canaries and on other birds, would repel
chickens and pigeons, and would repel flies in stables; would kill all
stables; would repel the flying moth; whereas cedar oil is not a nature
lent to all insects, and when used as directed, the article would not be
for the said purposes. It was alleged to be misbranded further in tha
listed entirely of inert ingredients, that is, ingredients which do not
destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the name and percentage an


used as
vermin,
oil is a
epel lice
lice on
odors in
al repel-
effective
t it con-
prevent,
iount of


each inert substance or
correctly on the bag la
appear upon the labels.
in violation of the Foo
80779 published under t
On July 19, 1939, no


ingr
bels,
Th
d an
hat
clai


edients present therein were not stated plainly and
nor did the fact that such ingredients were inert
e libel alleged that the article was also misbranded
Ld Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment No.


act.
mant


having


appeared,


judgment


of condemnation


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


1S03. Misbrandlng ol
SLiquid. Def
- 2138, 2139. S
.*Tie net contents o
dalared on the label
On June 23, 1939,
Pennsylvania, acting
ditrtct court libels
liquid at Philadelp


f Hits
ault d
ample
f the
I.


-It Liquid.


U. S. v. 216 Cans and 216 Cans of Hits-It


eerees of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. Nos.
Nos. 51591-D, 51592-D.)
containers of this product were less than the amount


the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
praying seizure and condemnation of 432 cans of Hits-It
hia, Pa.; alleging that the article had been shipped in


interstate commerce on or abou
Co. truck, from Camden, N. J.
T-,.oani,,,a Ant- .n9 1G10


I 4 and 6, 1939, via Hits-It Manufacturing
charging misbranding in violation of the


d. For Di
necessary.
with the


r the abbrn
; that when


t April
; and






450


INSECTICIDE ACT


1704. Adulteration and misbranding of BRnm's Chlorinated Cleanser. ,
100 Pounds of Baum's Chlorinated Cleanser. Default decree of con-
demnation and destruction. (I. &E. No. 2140. Sample No. 52058-Da)
This product contained a smaller proporffon of available chlorine anada algre
proportion of inert ingredients than declared. When diluted according to dit~-
tions, it would not give the parts per million of available chlorine indte
and would not be an effective disinfectant in such dilutions.
On June 23, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western Distriit of
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, iledi
the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 100 pound( fi
Baum's Chlorinated Cleanser at Erie, Pa.; alleging that the article had b
shipped in interstate commerce on or about February 2, 1939, by: Baums
Castorine Co., Inc., from Rome, N. Y.; and charging adulteration and nisbnd
ing in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Activ
Ingredients Available Chlorine 7%" and "Inactive Ingredients 93%," borne on
the label, represented that it contained not less than 7 percent available chlorine
and not more than 93 percent inert ingredients; whereas its strength and pit
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, i
it contained less than 7 percent available chlorine, and more than 93 perent
inert ingredients.
Misbranding was alleged in that the statements "Active Ingredients Atailale
Chlorine 7%," and "Inactive Ingredients 93%" were false and misleading and b
reason of the said statements, the article was labeled so as to deeiv
mislead the purchaser, since it contained less than 7 percent available
and more than 93 percent inert ingredients. It was alleged to be mis
further in that the following statements borne on the label, "This Baeteicid:l
Compound is approved by the Ohio Liquor Control Board, for beer glbte
Use 200 P. P. M. solution % oz. (1% heaping teaspoons) per gallon of te
Immerse glasses no less than 10 seconds and rinse with clean water. *


How is it Mixed? Chart
50 P. P. M. 3o oz. (% he
Mo oz. (1% heaping teas
heaping teaspoons) in 1
teaspoons) in 1 gal. wate
tion without precipitate,
water. Let stand 1 hours
as follows: % pint above
above solution in 3 gals.
3 gals. water makes 200
makes 500 P. P. M. *
use, refrigerators, bread t
with clean, hot water, rub
ful (% oz.) Baum's Clea
water and dry. To help (
syrup jars, beer glasses, I
fuls) to 3 gallons of wE


We oz. (% heaping teaspoon) in 1 gal water
gaping teaspoons) in 1 gal water makes 100 P,. P.
poons) in 1 gal water makes 200 P. P. M.1 o
gal. water makes 500 P. P. M. 4 oz. (12 h*an
r makes 2000 P. P. M. To obtain perfectly c
dissolve 4 lbs, of Chlorinated Cleaner in 3 gaf
then pour off clear solution. Use this clear Soluon
solution min 3 gals. water makes 50 P. P. M. pint
water makes 100 P. P. M. % pint above ob<0
P. P. M. 1% pint above solution in 3 gals. wate
* As Bactericide for general farm and household
oxes, garbage cans, etc., first rinse parts to be cleaned
clean and then apply a solution of 1 heaping teaspoon-i ...
ner to each 1 quart of water. Rinse well with warm
lean utensils in breweries, carbonated beverage plants,
bottles coils, pipes, use 1% o. (4 heaping easpoo S-
iter. Rinse well with clean hot water before using


aS
chlorine. Better germ killing is obtained by immersing for 10 minutes or longer.
Clean beer pipes twice a week, 90-hour intervals. Use pressure machine or
hand pump suction or force cleaner. Let stand in pipes 10 minutes or longer.
To deodorize and disinfect by spray floors, sinks, and drains, use 3 bea pi"
teaspoonfuls in 1 gallon of water. For sick room utensils, use 1% beap
teaspoons in 1. gallon of water, 1st soak 5 minutes. Clean well first," were
fsirn anti duntaldinw anm hy rpansn af the said statements the article was






1691-1710]


"WOTIOES- OF


JUDGMENT


1705. MisbrandJng of D-Stroy. U. S. v. Ultra Chemical Works, Inc.
guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 2074. Sample No. 25809-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations
ing its effectiveness in the control of insects.
On March 2, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of New
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the distri
an information against Ultra Chemical Works, Inc., Paterson, N. J.,
shipment by said company from the State of New Jersey into the State


York on or about May 10, 1938, of a quantit
branded insecticide within the meaning of the
The article was alleged to be misbranded in
the can label, "D-Stroy the Arch Foe of Insect
and Mosquitoes: Spray until room is filled wit
to fifteen minutes. Will work more effectively


Bed Bu
bugs ma
generous
insects n
*
cleaned
Spray D


s: The beds have tc
y be hidden in the f
ly. Roact
nay hide. Even if tl
* Directions Moti
and all traces of f
-Stroy over the entire


seams. After spray inj
cleaned out and spray
Spray cracks in floor
and misleading and by
as to deceive and misl
when used as directed
tive against flies, and
and fleas under all c(
be effective against all


effective


Sbe taken apart an
rame have to be th
tes and Ants: Spra
e insects escape to
is: The articles to
at, oil and grease


y of
Insec
that
Life
h mh
if wi


Plea of
regard-


SJersey,
ct court
alleging
of New


D-Stroy which was a
ticide Act of 1910.
the following statement
Directions
;t; keep room closed fo
ndows and doors are cl


mis-


ts on
Flies
r ten
closed.


all cracks or places where the
roughly sprayed, using D-Stroy
D-Stroy into all cracks where
hiding places they will soon die.
'e treated should be thoroughly
should be thoroughly removed.


e piece of fabric and pay particular attention to all


g pack immediately into a box which has been thoroughly
with D-Stroy. D-Stroy will not stain. Fleas:
boards and all other possible hiding places," were false
Season of the said statements, the article was labeled so
ead the purchaser since they represented that the article,
, would be effective against all insect life, would be effec-
would be effective against bedbugs, roaches, ants, moths,
conditions; whereas when used as directed, it would not
insect life, would not be effective against flies, and would


against


bedbugs,


roaches,


ants,


moths,


fleas


under


conditions.
" On June 12, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and
the court imposed a fine of $50.


HARRY L.


BROWN, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


trOe. Misbranding of Florozone Fragrant Disinfectant. U. S. v. Roland G. Bene-
ville (florozone Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. No. 2093.
Sample No. 26090-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its effectiveness as a disinfectant.
On June 6, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against Roland G. Beneville, trading as Florozone Co.,
Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about April 26, 1938,
from the State of New York into the State of New Jersey of a quantity of
flororne Fragrant Disinfectant, which was a misbranded fungicide within the
msifing of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements,
borne on the cartons and bottle labels, were false and misleading and by reason
of the said statements, it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers
in that they represented that it was an effective disinfectant and would disinfect
when used as directed; whereas it was not an effective disinfectant and would
not, disinfect when used as directed: "Efficient Refreshing Germi-
cide for General Use Disinfectant A valuable Preparation






452


mISECTICDE ACT


LN. T '.
!M '..* v.


applying Florozone to abrics such a
rugs, carpets and curtains; spray ui


gs, fillows, upholstery, tapestry,
Ulse sparingly and do not over


apply. Use min the same anitter for g g pa% wet mops, scrub pails and
any place that may act as a receptacle$ r disease germs and obnoxious odors
* Germicide."
On Jane 19, 1939, the defendant eherd aplea of guilty,
imposed a flue of $25.
fAmr L. Bn#, Acting Seretary of Agriculture.
1707. Misbranding of Royalite Pine Diinfectant and Royalite Coal Tar Disin-
fectant. U. S. v. Royal Soap Mannifaeturing Co. Plea of guilty. Fine,
$50. (I. & F. No. 2127. Sample oas. 59308-D, 59395-D, 59399-Dj>
These products were misbranded because of failure of the labels to declare
.
the inert ingredients that were present The Coal Tar Disinfectant was mis-
branded further because of false and leading representations regarding its
germicidal and deodorant properties anq, in the labeling of one shipment, re-
garding its disinfectant properties. .
On June 6, 1939, 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 Royal Soap Mamnufacturing Co., a dorpoflioh,
Jersey City, N. J., alleging shipment by said company on or about November
25, 1938, and February 4, 1939, from the State of New Jersey into the State of
New York of quantities of the above-named products, which were misbranded
fungicides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
Both products were alleged to be mibranded in that they consisted partially
of an inert substance, namely, water, wbich does not prevent, destroy, repel, or
mitigate fungi (bacteria), and the name and percentage amount of such inert
substance were not stated plainly and correctly on the label; nor in lieu thereof
were the name and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient of the
articles having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and the total percentage of
the inert ingredient present stated plainly and correctly on the label.
The Coal Tar Disinfectant was alleged to be misbranded further in that the
statement, "A cup full inr a pail of water makes a milky white soapy solution
that thoroughly destroys odors-kills germs," with respect to both lots, and
the statement "Disinfects" with, respect to one lot, borne on the can labels,
were false and misleading and by reason of said statements the articlewas O
labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, in that they represented that
it would destroy all odorM and would 1kill all germs, and that the product in
one shipment would be an effective disinfectant in the dilution specified;
whereas it would not destroy all odors would not kill all germs, and the prod-
uct in one shipment would not be an effective disinfectant in the dilution
specified.
On June 26, 19$9, a plea of guilty h ving been entered on behalf of the de-
fendant, the court imposed a fine of $ (
HAsw IL. BRowN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1708. Misbranding of Aeme
Plea bt guilty. F
17487-D.)


. Arsenite of Zinc. U. S. v. The Sherwin-Wiliamu Co.
ine, $150. (I. & F. No. 2113. Sample Nos. 17483-D,


This product was reresented to contain not more than 1 percent of water-
soluble arsenic expressed as metallic arsenic, whereas it contained more than
5 percent.
On June 2, 1989, 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 Sherwin-Williams Co., a corporation having a place






1691-1710]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


453


1709. Misbranding of G&O Ant Traps and G&O Anti-Beetle Fertilizer. U. S. v.
S Goulard & Olena, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $300 on each count. Sen-
tence suspended on all counts but first and defendant placed on proba-
tion for 1 year. (I. & F. No. 2106. Sample Nos. 9957-D, 13118-D, 29804--D,
37274-C.)
These products were misbranded because of false and misleading representa-


Lions in the labeling rn
insects. The Anti-Beetle
less total arsenic oxide t
pressed as metallic a
Qt inert ingredients pre;
.,n June 3, 1939, the 1
acing upon a report by
an information against
3, J., alleging shipment
ultry 1, 1937, to on or a
the States of Pennsylvai
Ant Traps and a quan
Iranded insecticides wit]
The anttraps were a
Ant Trap Kills House,
Shose Pesky Ants with
were false and mislead
was labeled so as to dece
that when used as direc
and lawn ants and when
whereas it would not be
ants, and when used as
The Anti-Beetle Fertil
ments, "Total Arsenic
Arsenic 6.18% Wa
-Inert material from Sul


Blood, Sill
by reason o
Z,.- 1 JltnfA .,


II


E
I
I
I


I
I


:1: ~ A W L-ue |)
C: ":i..d.e was
eqa "."livalent
,. t.an 0.20 1
Ste equiva.
. article coni
".: is equivale
. more than
i;":.: .and the e<
.,. declared o
-"i irk" k ,* *& *^
.. statements

...... e,)
.t." and
Sto &eeive
contained


?garding thi
SFertilizer
han declare
arsenic, than
sent.
United Stat


eir I
was


effectiveness in the control
misbranded further since


i of certain
it contained


ed; it contained more water-soluble arsenic,
indicated; and its label failed to declare


es attorney for the District of New


Je


the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
Goulard & Olena, Inc., doing business at Jersey
by said company in the period from on or about
Lbout April 7, 1938, from the State of New Jersey
nia and New York, respectively, of quantities of
tity of G&O Anti-Beetle Fertilizer, which were
hin the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,
* Carpenter Tropical & Lawn Ants" and
G&O Ant Traps," borne on the label and display


ng
ive
ted
iu
ef
iire
lize
Oxi
ter
ph


an
an4
, it
sed
fect
ctet
r w
ide
sol
ite


ca 75. %," borne
)f said statements,
purchaser in that t
not less than 8.2
to 6.18 percent me


iercen
ent t
:ained
nt to
0.20
uival
i the


t water-so
o metallic
I less than
less than
percent
ent to me
label. It


rsey,
court
City,
Feb-
into
G&O
mis-

'G&O
"Kill
card,


1 by reason of the said statements, the article
d mislead the purchaser in that they represented
was effective against house, carpenter, tropical,
as directed, would be effective against all ants;
ive against house, carpenter, tropical, and lawn
i it would not be effective against all ants.
'as alleged to be misbrauded in that the state-
not less than 8.25%. Equivalent to Metallic
uble Metallic Arsenic not more than .20%
of Ammonia, Bone, Meal, Castor Pumice, Dried


on the can label, were false
the article was labeled so as


hey


25
ta


luble
arse
8.25
6.18


repre


pierce
Illic ar
Sarsen
nic wa
percent
perce


serif ed


the total


and mislead
to deceive ai


amount of


ng
ad
ar


nt, that 8.25 percent arsenic oxide
senic, that the article contained not
ic expressed as metallic arsenic, and
s not less than 6.18 percent; where


It
n


water-soluble


tallic
was


arsenic
alleged


"Metallic Arsenic is the


I and
mis-
'senic
was
more
that
s the


arsenic oxide, 8.25 percent arsenic oxide
metallic arsenic, the article contained
arsenic expressed as metallic arsenic,


was materially less than
to be misbranded further


Active Grub killing ingredient in thi


amount
that the


mix-


"Kills Japanese Beetle Grubs Broadcast evenly (just as
at rate of 800-900 pounds per acre," borne on the can label, were
misleading and by reason of said statements, it was labeled so as
and mislead the purchaser since they represented that the article
arsenic in the form of metallic arsenic, and that when used as


directed it would be an effe
St did not contain arsenic ir
diected would not be an effe
-Beetle Fertilizer was alleged
Stially of inert substances, tha
ihot Drevent, destroy, repel, or


activee
i the
active
to be
t is,


miti


control for the Japanese beetle; whereas
form of metallic oxide, and when used as
Control for the Japanese beetle. The Anti-
misbranded further in that it consisted par-
substances other than lead arsenic, which do
gate insects and the name and the percentage


a-






454


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. &mEr


1710. Misbranding of Bo-No. UIT. S. v. Franklin C. Robb (Robb Chemia l).
Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. Sentence suspended and defendat placed
on probation for 6 months. (I. & F. No. 2120. Sample No. 44453D-.)
This product was misbranded because of false and misleading reptsentations
in the labeling regarding its effectiveness as a fly repellent and because the
cans contained less than the amount declared on the label.
On June 2, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of New Je|y
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
an information against Franklin C. Robb, trading as the RobbChem~i
at Matawan, N. J., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about November
5, 1938, from the State of New Jersey into the State of New York ofa quMti
of Bo-No, which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning )e
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following t
borne on the labeling, (can) "Spray Bo-No in the garbage cans and dast-b t
will act as a wonderful fly repellant 1 U S Gallon" and (shipping
,"% Doz. Gallons-Gal.," were false and misleading, and by reason of the sac
statements, it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser since it
would not act as an effective fly repellent and the cans contained less t1i
1 gallon of the article.
On June 12, 1939 a plea of guilty having been entered by the defendant, the
court imposed a fine of $100 but ordered that payment be suspended and that
the defendant be placed on probation for 6 months.
HARRY L. BRoWN, Acting Secretary of Agricultul





<
*ia




st >4
i^': *
K
KKX


2* ^ 4 | "S


* ~















INDEX

Acme Arsenite of Zinc:
Sherwin-Wiliaims
Baum's Chlorinated Clea
B aum's Castorine
EIEIio~- Diuinfectant:
Drug Products Co
Sharmatest Drg
Bo-No:


Paint


TO NOTICES Or JUDGMENT 1691-1710
- -


Co.------
nser:
Co,, Inc .--
o. c-----


N. J. No.


1708
1704
1700
1700
1710
1710

1698
1692

1695
1697
1705

1698
1694
1706
1706

1693


Formaldehyde Germicide: N
Cheplin Biological Labora-
tories, Inea-----...-....
G&O Ant Traps:
Anti-Beetle Fertilizer:
(Goulard & Olena, Inc .......
Hits-It Liquid:
Hits-It Manufacturing Co~--_
Hy-Grade Mosquito Lotion:
Smith, C. D., Drug Co--------
Lead Arsenate Spray No. 3:
Nu-Way Chemical Spray Co--
Pickard, T. W .--.--.--.. -
Lethane No. 4 :
Nu-Way Chemical Spray Co--
Pickard, T. W .........
Monogram Brand Mosquito Lotion:
Royal Manufacturing Co. of
Duquesne -.......----
Permacedar Kennel Bedding:
Yoho & Hooker- ... ---
Royalite Coal Tar Disinfectant:
Pine Disinfectant:
Royal Soap Manufacturing Co-
Sulphur No. 2:
Nu-Way Chemical Spray Co --
Pickard, T. W .... --- --- -
Thompson's, Dr., Dry Disinfectant
and Insecticide:
Thompson, A. W., Co -----.


SJ. No.

1699

1709
1703
1696
1701
1701
1701
1701

1698

1702

1707
1701
1701

1691


& Chemical


Cob .-~..---...- --'-- -- a-- -


Robb Chemical Co ....-------
Robb, F. C ...- --------...
Bugine Liquid Spray .:
Royal Manufacturing Co. of
2anse.. Duee 6--_----
Cedarettes:
Cedarette Co -----.-....... --
D-D Disinfectant:
United Chemical Co------ .
DL Germicide:
Dayton Laboratories, Inc- ......
Bra emical Works, Inc.__-
Death-Spray:
oyal Manufacturig Co. of
DultqnKm une.- -_ in -
DeiaceSweeping Compound: .
MWiay Chemical Co ......
Florozone Fragrant Disinfectant:
n:e*zey'ill, eit i.. ----i I
xxxxxxlxjr4J 3ne x x. c i--- -A -|h a H- II- 1 I
KKKKKK KKK K KKKKK KK e^--^^/ ^^ ^.^^ ^ .ir -r^^_ **f ^ ***.^^v.|*: *^~e ^^.-nr^p ^^
C oAAA^AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A AA 4^~- *..*..*..*..*.*A^ ^ ^k 4^J :J
DethSray e







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


I 1111 I I 11 1111111
3 1262 08582 4976


/ I


I
.
a


H


,**I j *

.**i *