.."i..i T O r ii _1
*^ E- PH*
:::::iG:.. G:.. x
Issued May 1946
" ": 4:."
FOOD AND DRUI
S: .[Given pursuant
NT UDER T]
to seet n 4 of the
.b.the Acting Secretary of Agrulture,
Ichbr-the Acting Secretary of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C.,
February 29, 1940]
.n of Abeo Pine Disinfectant. U. S. v. Amerlean Brush Co.
.a of guilty, Fine, $20. ( & F. No. 2130. Sample No. 39460-D.)
r gduct failed to bear on its ] bel the required ingredient statement, it
I ted to be nontoxic when|it was not, and it was found to be an
j... "sinfectanlt when used at the dilution specified.
n"..*: .r 9, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon,
...a report by the Secretary jpf Agriculture, flied in the district court
font.against-the American Irush Co., a corporation, Portland, Oreg.,
p.ment by it in violate Lion o fthe Insecticide Act of 1910 on or about
.,ri3,.:4~39, from Portland, Or g., into the State of Washington of a
E4(Abco Pine Disinfectant, which was a misbranded fungicide.
tile Was alleged to be misbr dded in that it consisted partially of an
.sta..ce, namely, water, and the .me and percentage amount thereof were
upon the label; nor in lieq thereof were the name and percentage
" .each. substance. therein poss ssing fungicidal properties, and the total
pft.the inert substance stated lainly and correctly on the label. It was
H.te misbranded further in t at the statements, "Non-Toxic *
t ..* Use .1 to 2 ounces to each gallon of water for all general
g,purposes" ..borne on the I bel, were false and misleading, and by
*rof...it was labeled so as to receive and mislead purchasers since it
'ni*wntoxice and. it was not an effective disinfectant when used in the
..Cl. ed.e .
&aer 19, 1939
lea of gui
n M. .. st WeilMe's Pine C
SI .ine Dislnfebtant. U.
B" of tuIlty. ,Fine, $200O
S 43225-D., 45228-D.)
tCleanser in the dilutions
ZtB*&1its labeling :did not I
Se... rectdons for use of the
*.Bn used. as directed,
SZt would not improve th
;M4ectapt failed to 1
y was entered and a fine of $20 was
IE.L, Ating fSecretary of Agriculture.
eanser, Weinkle's Perfume Crystals, and
L v. Isaace Weinkle (The Weinkle Co.).
I. & F. No. 2136. Sample Nos. 10469-D,
recommended would not be an effective
r an ingredient statement as required
?erfume Orystals were inadequate since
|uld not be effective against moths and
. condition f .the air. The labeling of
ar -.a ingredient statement as required
[N. J., I. r
led so as to deceive and misle:
hen used as directed.
ine Cleanser and also the Pine
fungicides since they consisted
name and percentage amount
r in lieu thereof did the labels
ingredient of the article having
the inert ingredient.
e Crystals were alleged
the statements, "Weinkle's Perfume COr
* Repels Moths and Insects. D
dressing room, funeral parlors, offices, a
borne on the can labels, were false an
article was labelekd so as to deceive anr
as directed, it would not repel moths a
condition of the air.
The information also charged intersta
tion of the Federal Caustic Poison Act,
published under that act.
On July 19, 1939, a plea of guilty v
fine of $200 for violation of both acts.
Disinfectant were alleged to be mis-
partially of an inert ingredient, water,
of the water were not stated on the
bear the name and percentage amount
ig fungicidal properties, and the total
tystals For Air Conditioning
directions: Sprinkle around in closets,
nd in musty and unventilated places,"
misleading and by reason thereof, the
] mislead purchasers, since when used
nd insects and would not improve the.
te shipment of other products in viola-
reported in notice of judgment No- 0A
:^ Gfjpi B, HBmL, Acting Secretary of Agriculltre.
1713, 2ijurandsint of dkurdafltm Pine-0. U. S. v. Churchill Manufacturing 1w,,
hie. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. No. 2153. Sample-No. 48594-.)
The label for this product failed to bear the required ingredient statement.
On October 3, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the diS-
trict court an information against the Churchill Manufacturing Co., a corpota-
tion, Galesburg, Ill., alleging shipment in violation of the Insecticide Act of
1910 on or about January 24, 1939, from Galesburg, Ill., into the State of
South Dakota of a quantity of Churchill's Pine-O, which was a misbrandea
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially C.
an inert substance or ingredient, namely, water, and the name and percent
amount thereof were not stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the label;
nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount of each substance or
ingredient having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and the total percentage
of the inert substance or ingredient stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on
On October 26, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered and the court imposed a
penalty of $25 in lieu of fine and costs.
GnOVER B. HILL, Acting Secret
1714. Misbranding of Piratol, Selig Airaid, Wee
Cleanser. U. S. v. Selig Co. Plea of guilty,
2137. Sample Nos. 44903-D, 44904-D, 44918-D,
The labels for each of the above-named products
The label for Selco Toilet Cleanser also failed to be
On September 11, 1939, the United States attorney
of Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary (
district court an information against the Selig Co.,
alleging shipment by it in violation of the Insecticid
September 20, 1938, and January 3, 8, and 16, 1939, f
vi-Kill, and Seleo Toilet
. Fine, M400. (I. A. .
bore false efficacy claims.
ar the required ingredient
for the Northern DistiA
)f Agriculture, filed In t.k
a corporation, Athens, Gas,
e Act of 1910, on or jboit
rom Atlanta, Ga., into t:e
.. :: ::f
.. ::". : ':
. *-: H
S ..... .
'"." : :': P
X .nl i n
nd aired. Kitchen Sinks, Scru above and beneath the sink using
tohe half cup of Piratol to a pIil of water and flush pipes with
gr of the fluid. Poultry Houses---Disinfect the premises occupied
rbw sprinkling with a solution o a cup of Piiatol to each gallon of
. Eoor Animal Quarters-Keep the barns, kennels, pens, and sti
clean by scrubbing and spraying freely with a solution of Pirato
on of one cupful to a pail of water. Scrub all floors with th
* This will help
cup of Piratol to
to prevent jdiseasef' "Piratol *
a pail of water when scrubbing or
" "Garbage-Sprinkle with Piratol
1 in the
* Floors Use
solution one half
4o.Q f ;gallon of water. Rinse the tmpty can with some of the solution and
yelie wash in the can. Piratol bhlps prevent the breeding of flies and cer-
fcLsects," and "Roaches-Scrubbing regularly with a solution of one cup
l$ ,Piratol to a pail of water will destroy roaches by contact," borne on the
ph ,iwe false and misleading and iy reason thereof, the article was labeled
Bto deceive and mislead purchaser,, since it would not help prevent disease,
M not disinfect when applied by sprinkling, would not be an effective dis-
t in the weaker dilutions specified; and when used as directed, would
|^ all vermin, would not help prevent the breeding of flies and certain
M i.ects unless it was applied repeatedly, and would not destroy roaches.
I.ig Airaid was alleged to be nisbranded in that the statements, "Airaid
Ef 0i Airaid Repells Unpleasant Odors Airaid Ideal for im-
.^Aitmospheric conditions in schools, theatres, office buildings, factories and
.rgirUlar places," borne on the label, were false and misleading and by
i thereof, the article was labeled;so as to deceive and mislead purchasers,
frit would not repel moths, would not repel unpleasant odors, and would not
Ry at.ospheric conditions in the places designated.
Ieevi-Kill was alleged to be mipbranded in that the statements, "Weevi-
se W.ill Insects A Powerful Contact Spray Kills Flour Beetles,
Veevils, Indian Mealmoths, Sawtooth Grain Beetles. Spray Generously
ctrie. Sprayer or Hand Sprayer," borne on the label, were false and
pg and by reason thereof, theprticle was labeled so as to deceive and
S~Epiirchasers, since it would not kill all mill insects and would not kill
..:Selco Toilet Cleanser was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted
;.pf inert substances or ingredients, namely, substances other than sodium
S.... and the name and percentage amount of each inert substance or
t were not stated plainly and correctly on the label; nor in lieu thereof
tzhame and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient having
w properties and total percentage of the inert substances or ingredients.
.jlinly and correctly on the label. It was alleged to be misbranded
i that the statement, "Seleb Toilet Cleanser sterilizes,"
the label, was false and leading and by reason thereof, it was
=so 0as to deceive and mislead jPurchasers, since it would not sterilize
B jj* ) "..: (-
|I b i@iflet 'Cleanser also was al
EPoison-Att, as reported in not
M bet 8, :1939, a plea
,- n of both aets, the
aMounting to $400.
i.. H .
Is |l" "H" : """ n /
. L .!: C
A~u," ,I S-
:fl randing of Gescd DIsinfeete
N::SY,. h4.d G0-lie. Liquid Spr4
a. U UIlasw. asa _Im.llmus Enanlair- IC.. U
eged to be misbranded under the Federal
ice of judgment No. 95 published under
as entered and the court imposed fines
he counts under the Insecticide Act of
IRovER B.: X, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
Insect Spray, Flyo Liquid
Albhert Granowltter, Harry
In1 Dim at w^nJl*. Total
Co., alleging shipment By themtint violin of the Insecticide Act of 1910, on or
about January tO, July 15, and Au 15, 1938, from Brooklyn, N. Y., into the
States of WNw Jersey, Cotnecticut, and Pennsylvania of a quantity of Gesco
Disinfectant tat nired and quantities of Quincy Insect
Spray ffti Liqid ay ad Liquid Spray that were misbranded
The Gesco Disinfectaht wa's alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted
partially of inert substances, naltely,
nor in lieu thereof wre the name 41 percentage amount of each substance
having fungicidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert substances
so present therein, stated plainly and ctrectly on the label.
The Qitey Insect Spray was allege~ to be misbranded in that the statements,
"Insect spray kills insects is harmless," borne on the label, were
false and idiseading and by reason theteof, it was labeled so as to deceive and
mislead purchasers since when used as directed, it would not be effective against
all insects, and it was not nonpoisonous.
The Flyfo Liquid Spray was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,
"Insect's Enemy. Flyfo Liquid Spray it is a destroyer of household
insects Flyfo Liquid Spray Kills Flies Flies *
Lose doors And windows. Spray Flytf upward in all directions, filling room
with vapor. Repeat in 3 minutes if necessary until insects have dropped to the
floor," borne on the label, were false and misleading and by reason thereof, it
was labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since it would not destroy
all household insects and was not an effective spray for killing flies when used
The G-Men Liquid Spray was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,
"G-Men Liquid Spray Kills flies :* Close doors and windows.
Spray freely upward in all directions, tlling the room with vapor. Repeat in 3
minutes if necessary until insects have dropped to the floor," borne on the label,
were false and misleading and by reasdh thereof, it was labeled so as to deceive
and mislead the purchaser, since it wa* not an effective spray for killing flies.
On October 4, 1939, pleas of guilty were entered and the court imposed fines
of $300 against Albert Granowitter, $10) against Harry Miller, and $100 against
Gaovia B. HILL, Acting
t1716. Adulteration and ndtbranding of Bronco Pine-All Disinfectant. U. S. v.
Uncle Sam Chendeal Co. Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $40. (I. & F. No.
2084, Sample No. 25870-".)
This product was represented to consist entirely of pine oil, but an examina-
tion of a sample showed that it contained mineral oil in a proportion of approxi-
mately 15 percent. It also failed to bear a correct ingredient statement as
required by the act.
On June 23, 193980, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New
York, acting upon a report by the eeietary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against the Incle Sam Chemical Co., Inc., of New York,
N. Y., alleging shipment in violating of the Insecticide Act of 1910 on or about
June 22, 1938, from New York, N. into the State of Connecticut of a quantity
of Thonco Pine-All Disinfectant, whi"h was nan adulterated and misbranded
Thei product was alleged to bE adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
below the professed standard band quality under which it was sold, namely,
"Pine-All Disinfectant Inert matter water 10%."
nina nllno'ou-I I-n
*W EAfl LA LA~..at.tA LI,
he mishrnnded in that- the f-atemeont "Pine-All lirninfpprtlnti"
having fungicidal properties, and the total percentage of inert ingredients, stated
plainly on the label.
On SJuly 18, 1939, a plea of guilty ,was entered and the court imposed a
H..-:,: .'., t;.. GROVE B. Hrr.ILL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
* .. t :.. : *
atAR. ,Misbranding of Insex Repellent.-. U. S. v. De Pree Co., Inc. Plea of nolo
,. ., ecntendere. Fine, $200. (I. & F. No. 2151. Sample No. 55202-D.)
R. i product,
J.i .- ,f .. P | ^
of. Michigan, fi]
.Ia from Hot
egelleit that wa
4h ep. Repeller
.exposed to the
:..qg k ace, ha
".. ... "Iuse
.j. W..-id. b3
4a6 t1 'purcha
*. J .A"
r 19, 1939, the
led an informa
nt in violation
land, Mich., in
was alleged to
it E D
menace of m
x Repellent k(
fishing trip, go
of the Insec
to the State
value as a mosquito
tes attorney for the
the De Pree Co., Inc
ticide Act of 1910 on
of Illinois of a quan
Sbe misbranded in t
directions Rub Inses g
osquito bites *
ieps mosquitoes away
ilf game, picnic, or
!. Holland, Mich.,
or about April 6,
tity of Insex Re-
hat the statements, (bottle)
gently into the skin wherever
* on the ankles, legs, arms,
every 2 to 4 hours," and
for several hours. For the
any outdoor occasion where
Sbe a source of menace and discomfort," were
reason thereof, the article was so labeled as
ers, since it would not keep mosquitoes away fo
26, 1939, a plea of nolo contender was entered
fine of $200 was imposed.
. ... ..
I!.. ". .
false and mis-
to deceive and
'r several hours.
on behalf of the
1. Misbranding of Cedarettes, U. S. v. 43 Packages of Cedarettes. Default
':,:,::.". decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2103. Sample No.
. H:....: 64050-D.)
.I:i;:...product bore on its label un
:.*g":: -i i iTfjfrii "t.4a .
.lA:' 'ri"dhouses of ants, cockroaches
.I I.gredient statement required
i..uly 27, 1939, the United
I...: .upon a report by the Secre
i.ii..ii...i. I:.. p:1paying seizure and condemn
H._lu.. *,...:Mvant.; alleging that the ar
H ii'.l^ 7ut September 19, 1938, by
iiil'",.... ng that it was a misb
EH : t' Act of 1910.
..... ..product was alleged to be r
i,, :-Pefentative. Directions.
H: P and in deep parts of ove
*, rtzg, underneath hangers
*1.. po0.-.id your house of ants,
.. ,n. cockroaches, sprinkle w
... "mM4.ss and where infested,"
.lM. ...;br season thereof, it was so 1
E:;\:.''. .ea :. since when used as
warranted claims that it
?s, and bedbugs. The lab
by the act.
States attorney for the I
tary of Agriculture, filed
nation of 43 packages of
would prevent moths
41 also failed to bear
District of Montana,
in the district court
Cedarettes at Great
tidle had been shipped in interstate commerce
the Cedarette Co. from Salt Lake City, Utah;
randed insecticide within the meaning of the
Place in small]
in clothes clo
borne ,on the
that the statements, "Cedarettes
l cheese cloth bags. Place under
trunks, dresser drawers, pockets
sets. Sprinkle underneath rugs.
and bed bugs. Directions: For
For bed bugs, sprinkle on top
label, were false and misleading
abeledjand branded as to deceive and mislead
directetl, it would not prevent moths and it
, _not rid the house of ants, cockroaches, and bedbugs. It was alleged
'% b:0ia.brabrded further in that it insisted partially of inert substances,
Slitk ey, substances other than cedar oilj and the name and percentage amount
*......or. ingredient of the article having insecticidal properties, and the
-.ecentae of the inert substances it" ingredients, stated on the label.
GROVER B. HILL, Acting Secretary o
i s10 wa9 ppn "l1 2$ pq of nicotine and 97.19 perce
. May 16, 1939, the United Sta ts attorney for the Western
Oklahoma, acting upon a report by~e Secretary of Agriculture,
district court a tiL raying seizure aud condemnation of ten 25-
of Aphicide No. 15 and three 25-pjd cans of Aphicide No. 10 at
oif da.; alleging that the article ad been shipped in interstate
within the period frof April 27 to July 19. 1938, by the Aphicide S
facturing Co. from Rocky Ford, Coblo.; and charging that it was an
and misbranded instcticide within earning qf the InsectkidA
TLue Aphicide ,. 15 was alleged t be adulterated in that its st
purity fell elo>w te trotessed standard and quality under which
na~eJy Nieoikne5%, Inert. Igredl~e 95%." It was alleged to be
in that the statements "Nicotine 5 Inert ingredients 95%," bo
label, werDal se and misleading a b reason thereof, it was label
eeeive awisiaead ugchaserzs, ~ it contained less than 5 perch
tine and more han 0 percent of ne ingredients.
The Aphicide No. 1Q was alleged it be adulterated in that its st
parity fell below Athe fessed standrd and quality under which
namely, < 'Nicotine 3,5%, Inert ingred ents 96.5%." It was alleged
namly,^Meotne A~c, nC~ mgredfents 965^"It was alleged
rteanded im that the statements 'Nieotine 3.5%, Inert ingredients 96
on the label, were false and misleadAg and by reason thereof, it
so as ti deceive and mislead purchasers, since it contained less than
of nicdlaeB and more than 95 pezent of inert ingredients.
On July 20, 1939, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemn
forfeitpze was entred and the project was ordered sold to loca
growers or farmers, after removal of all labels.
fl -.-~ < ya a
Him., Acting Beere
1720. Misbranding of Cresolene Disinfecting Fi
(Calhm Manufacturing Co.). Plea of n
(I. & X. 2148. ISmpl Ni *5255-D.)
This product possessed a phenol cocient lower
and it would not have been an effect disinfectant
in the labeling.
On September 6, 199, the United states attorney
tary oT Ag
. S. v. L
filed in the
it was sold,
'mrne on the
led so as to
ent of nieo-
it was sold,
to be mis-
than that stated on the label,
in the dilution recommended
Penasylvania, filed an information against Lena Ergang, trading;
Martufactnring Co., rhiladeiphia Pt alleging shipment by her
the Insectide Act of 1910, os or4bo March 13, 1939, from Pht
into the State of New Jersey of a quantity of Cresolene Disinfect
The aodet was alleged to be a randed fungicide in that 1
"Phenol!to-"tfieiemt 2, F. : A. ** Used as a Disinfectant
for gle~ning $e Pasn Csamber ts, 'alls 'and Woodwork. In I
4*a a Geraciede. Tirections--Five tablespoons to a gallon of
teluionosf su"iett~-tnesgth to atet 4I" requirements," borne on t
were fali an4 jMeSig and byleaSbn thereof, it was labeled s
#nd 'leas pau3Pases einae it possessed a phenol coefficient of le:
B4 agorA|ing to tep ID*. A. metho;l and when used in the di
on the label, it would not aet as an effective disinfectant.
Si ftembf, 1% 1 S a lea 4 nlo contender was entered,
found the defendant guilty, aa fine of $5.
SGov~ HILL, Acting Secretary of
1721. isbrag of gara 90-1 Dust Code J-12. U.
1721.,Misbranding of_ gar 90-PT.. .. Dust Code J-12. UI.
ern District qf
g as the 0ahn
in violation Of
ting Fluid ttak
in Sick Roqm
water makes a
he bottle label,
o as to deceive
ss than 2 when
and the court
v. 38 Bags of
A ..Z1-4730] NOTICES O% JUDGMENT 463
.impbimed sulphur. A portion of this m erial consists of highly colloidal sulphur
"gdiaced by the absorption of molten s phur into Bentonite Clay, which is used
.6fr.the purpose of rendering the Sulp r colloidal," were false and misleading
II:. '& h y Reason thereof, it was so labeled as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
's: nes it. would not control such plant leases as respond to uncombined sulfur,
.Ufh41id it contain any sulfur.
.*.!4a. September 13, 1939, a default deqe of condemnation was entered and the
.'wu.ga.uet was ordered destroyed. r
GROVER B HILL., Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
.. .:: ** :' -
.: J*B MIsibranding of Harris Blu-Rib in Spray. U. S. v. Nineteen 5-Galion
S Caps of Harris BIn-Rib-Un S ray. Default decree of condemnation,
if:: .. fofeiture, and destruction. I. & F. No. 2134. Sample No. 30768--D.)
s product was found to be valueless as a disinfect
ive against insects that infest baby chicks or hog
iveEh an dips for killing ticks. V
j.i. e 9, 1939, the United States attorney for the
$,ppon,. a report by the Secretary ;of Agriculture, f
al paying seizure and condemnation of nineteen
^-X[n Spray, an insecticide and fuigicide, at Cham
. jgie had been shipped on or about June 2, 1938,
tlga.a, Nebr.; and charging misbrpnding in violati
ant; and it would not be
s, nor would it be more
rict of New Mexico,
in the district court
llon cans of Harris
Mex.; alleging that
he R. L. Harris Co.
on of the Insecticide Act
alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements were
ng and by reason thereof, it was labeled so as to deceive and
s, since it was valueless as a disinfectant; it would not control
Baby chicks when used as directed, it would not .act as an
gfel treatment for all varieties of sepb or mange nor as an insecticide for all
l.tis 4f insects that infest hogs, and it would not be more effective than dips
.4Ixrg ticks: "Valuable as a disinfectant of houses Do not spray
^.pn chicks or young turkeys, but spray their sleeping quarters heavily
The day Spraying bogs in sleeping quarters once or twice a
Sery beneficial as germ-killer, Blu-Rib-Un *
.c.s Also very valuable as a general insecticide when disease
faept in the flock, Blu-Rib-JUn Spray will give entire satisfaction
. sed to overcome scab,'or mange in hogs. For hogs badly in-
.wth mnange, spray animals once a day for three days, always spraying
.. lainside of the building. Spraying hogs in sleeping quarters
twice a week is very beneficial ';as an insecticide Blu-Rib-Un
a ticks more effectively than dip. If the directions are followed and
a thoroughly sprayed, the desired results will be obtained. Easy, safe
jiqemical to use and more effective than a dip, it is a great benefit to the
p' and to their owners."
ar.aile was also alleged to be misbranded under the Federal Food and
A.ct, as reported in notice of judgment No. 30961, published under that act.
I^Npyepnber 10,. 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
rTe ae.dd and the product was order destroyed.
: .: GROVEG B.Inx.I, Ac(jrg Secretary of Agriculture.
S..uqbanqUng of X-Ode. U. S. v.0 2-Ounee
l650f 1-Pound Cans, and 89 ound, TT
: : Drum of X-Ode. Decree of unxemnatoipi
-.. released under bond for rela ljag. (I. 4
" 48402-D, 48403-D, 48404-D.)
e labels on the various-sized conta ers of this
!eat .statement as required by law.j Moreover,,
and 250 5-Ounce Packages,
10-Pound, and 1 50-Pound
Sand forfeiture. Product
F iF. No. 2141. Sample Nos.
product failed to bear an
they all bore efficacy claims
leading aid by reason thereof, the article was so labeled
mslead "uh ears, since it would t eliminate or kill al
not kilil all gters
Theprodtct Ci tai in the -p d cans was alleged t
thiat the starmentf X-Ode Kils Q Kills Sm
Eiminator X-Ode Takes Odors Off the A
mater Genticide and DisiieEtant Jse One Ounce to a
either hot or cold. This 'No. 16' Container Makes 16
* We Guarantee the ofimit any odor whatsoe
face from which the odor arises is washed or sprayed with
ommended dilution X-Ode stan alone as the one de-
this WithoMt Legaing Any Odor Of II Own. Takes Odors 1Of
Medical Laboratory Tests Prove Gejmicidal Action of X-C
mended dilution, will prevent the gflth of and destroy o
bacteria. For Toilets, Uflnls, Drains-Wash su
solution, and use for mopping floors. For Cool
Oases-Wash or spray surfaces and fittings. Place solution
trainers in food compartments, remove when X-Ode loses c
and Food Odors-Keep X-Qde soluton in shallow pans
* For Odors in Ribigs, Auto UI 1ftisery, etc. *
Stench Bombs! Takes Odors Off the Air,' borne on the can
false and misleading anid by reason thereof, the article wa
deceive and mislead purchasers, since it would not
or eliminate or kill all odors, would nqt difineet or
when exposed in shallow pans, would not stand alone
leaving any of its own odors, and it was not an e
used in the dilution recommended or when used as d
The product contained in the 2-ounce and 5-ounc
be misbranded in that the statement, '-Ode takes Oc
Household Package-Makes 5 Gallon Use in water
color lasts! Kills all Odor0 Mak
in any room-use in kitchens, ba events, refrig
cans or Anywhere where odors qaiginate. Neutr
tiseptic-All in One! In our recommended dilution,
* to prevent body odors. Directions: Dissol
gallon of water, hot or cold. With this solution-W
trainer where an. odor exists; it will vanish almost im
ing Odors by placing in shallow pan on or above ra
in refrigerator by using in open dish on bottom of foo
the labels, were false and misleading an by reason
as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since it would
air, would not make the air fresh and pure in any roor
or bacteria, would not act as an effetive deodorant
pans, and was not an effective 4sinfectant whe
The product contained in paikges Of all sizes was
further in that it did consist ,partialy of inert ingrec
the percentage amount of the inert ingredients were
nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage ai
Ingredient having fnngicidal prop ties, anda the total
ingedients stated plainly and eoreetly on the label.
The article contained in the 2-ounce and 5-ounce pac
be misbranded under the Food and Drugs Act, as re
ment No. 30959 published under that act.
e as a
ir! The Odor-Elim-
Gallon of water
ver, when the sur-
X-Ode in our rec-
fI The Air
)de, in our recom-
rfaces with X-Ode
in Flat open con-
olor. For Cooking
on top of ranges.
Effective even after
s and cartons were
s labeled so as to
I odors off the air
n active deodorant
's was alleged to
he Air! *
id as long as the
r fresh and pure
rmicide and An-
tablespoons to a
Surface or Con-
: Destroy Cook-
rent Food Odors
tment," borne on
t was labeled so
all odors off the
ve two t
n, would not kill all odors
when exposed in shallow
n used in the dilution
alleged to be misbranded
clients, and the name and
not stated on the label;
mount of each and every -
kages was also alleged to
ported in notice of judg-
[N. J., L IF,
as to deceive and
l odors and would
1 l-i736] NOTICES OF) JUDGMENT
.1A 1an1-information against Leroy C. GlO:sner, trading at Eldena, Ill.,
p. nkit? f Glessner Bros., alleging shipment by him in violation of the
SAt o 1910 on or about May 6, 1938, frogt Eldena, Ill., into the State c
| fi~f lyof Glessner's Liquid Ant Killer which was adulterated and mr
e toduet was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and
Irxre professed standard and quality tinder which it was sold, namc
ingrdients 4%, sodium arsenate 4%, iftallic arsenic 161%, inert i
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "active ingre
"I # dm ia arsenate 4%, metallic arsenic 101%. inert ingredients 96%,'
.IS label, were false and misleading andby reason thereof, it was lat
t zhdmceive and mislead the purchaser, sihee it contained less than 4
p egtie ingredients, less than 4 percent of sodium arsenate, less than 1.
arse z ifmcinaantLro .Gsnrptaiga lenacen.
.. .......ei, expressed as metallic arsenic, and more than 96 perce
i. ts. It was alleged to be misbranded further since it contain
"ii.:ii igte amount of arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as per
Setallic arsenic, was not stated on the label.
i i., OSOctober 16, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $25 wa
-..:.ive an GraOVEr B. HILL, Acting Secretary of Agr
|-1 .X5. Adulteration and misbranding of national Diesinfectant. U. S. i
I. .': aplan, trading as the Diamond Drug & Magnesia Co. Plea
: .* .:f ] 4 *" mman, trading_*__^^_ -__ at __e D -- o_ d ---rm _.&_ __ a-- nes_ --- o.- _- ____e-
JE. ~ Fine, $15. (I. & F. No. 2039. Sample Nos. 20992-C, 5529
., ^e strength and purity of this product fell below its profe
ffl, since it contained a larger proportion of inert materials
.jabel- It was also found to be short of the declared volu
.'"i ay2, 1938, the United States attorney for the District (
dSiubpon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
Ththmation against James J. Kaplan, trading as the Diamond ]
tarzibridge, Mass., alleging shipment.by him in violation o
jit,of 1910 on or about July 7, 1937, from Cambridge, Mass.,
k Roe Island, of a quantity of National Disinfectant which was
. i product was alleged to be adulterated in that the state
Htcial.': water, not over 10%," borne on the label, purported and
its standard and quality were such that it contained inert ingr
ioti.lon of not more than 10 percent; whereas its strength and
*ueh professed standard and quality, since it contained inert ing
water and mineral oil in a proportion greater than 10 percent.
"It W:. alleged to be misbranded in that the statements "inert
|i^.!10%," "8 Fl. Oz." borne on the bottle label, were fals
a.d by reason thereof, it was labeled so as to deceive and misled
)f Iowa, of
' borne on
eled so as
it of inert
vt A_ a.-r n
eu atseifb L.,
v. James J.
ssed standard or
than that stated
district court an
Drug & Magnesia
if the Insecticide
into the State of
ments "inert ma-
edients in a pro-
purity fell below
e and misleading
id the Durchaser,
iciit contained inert materials in a proportion greater than 10 percent, it did
4.teirnmist solely of water as such inert material but did consist of water and
#eal. oil as such inert materials, and the bottles contained less than 8 fluid
I Oc"tober 4, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $15 was imposed.
.J GROVER B. HELL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
f..atn. ce .susapne of Nox-Mold Spray. .at. S. v. Caperton Cbemical Co,, Inc.
.... PIea of nolo contendere. Fine, .$50 on the first count; Impositlon of
l^ : :sentence suspended on the second count. (I. & F. No. 2159. Sample No.
l. .* 6rl90--D.)
label for this product bore false efficacy claims, and it also failed to
Sthe required ingredient statement. .
closets, blinds, etc
borne cmo the label, were false and u
hpled so as to deceive and mislead
"yuid not kill moth eggs and moth 1
plt nt as a disinfectant or as
&v#as 411~ged to be misbranded
an inert substance or ingredient, nam
plain furniture, 1
. This disinfects
misleading and by r
purchasers since it
arvae, would not ki
a germicide when u
further in that it
ely, water, and the
ioks, draperieS .upp,
eason thereof it 4f
would not kill .mt4i.
ll silverfish, .etc.,.and
sed as directed. The
consisted partially pft
name and percentage
amirot hereof were not stated plainly and correctly, or at all
Alr Jen thereof were the name and percentage amount of
or ingredient having insecticidal or fungicidal properties and the
age of the inert substance or ingredient stated plainly and corrn
on the label.
On November 20, 1939, a plea of nolo contender was entered
'5swsz4pop eipyr the fire r Imposition of sentence
pnp the second count pending ftur br investigation as to the l
Gzo v ar HL, Acting Secretary of
1727. )ibranding fWz Bed Bfiu etroyer. U. S. v. 92 OCan
3ug Drtroyer. Default de ree of condemnation an
\ (&lji .No. 2156. Sample No. q5935-D.)
The contanexs of this product each contained a smaller am
atar j th abeL
n September 8, 1939, the United States attorney for the No
of Illinois, acting iwon a report by the Secretary of Agricultu
district conj libel praying seizure and condemnation of 92
Bed ug Destroyer at Chicago, Ill.; alleging that the article ha
Sintestate ^comnrgpb on qr about february 21, 1938, by the I
ead Corporation fro mde, b the.; and charging that the
pisibritded ineetice n ipltrin the Inseeticide Act of 19
y:. .js-y *<* /.s < r : ^ y ^ r c
Tl^lTln lhQyfiW'sl"i~i pnn i an tifrfTfit IPnrigohl
p: product was allege
Ozs. Litros .473," borne (
thrqo, it was labeled a
t ae eup Xof contain
41O cn iea e sma8,r a1
On NovemberF 11*9,
tpp Pws otrg and th
1728. Misbrandlng of M
Co., Inc le
The asbeJ fo ths :p
ments. The label also
as required by thp lpw.
On S imbet t 1931
of Pennsylvania, acting
in the district court a
PhUladltpiIia, Pd2 aflle i
10i%.aso r about Mar
New York of a ouantit
The product was all
Sterilizing Solution *
, on the label;
? total perceet-
ectly, or 4. at,
L and a ..fine of
labeling of g.e
is of Whis Bed
re, fijd in
cans of Ws
d been si
R. M. Ho las-
product was a
ed to be nmisbranded in that the statements 16 FL
on the labe were false and misleading and by reasp
s as to.leevye and mislead purchasers, since eaci :of
16 fluid ounces or 0.473 liter of the said article, Iut
gunt We rr.s
no claimant having appeared, judgment of cond.eij.-
wpt was ordered destroyed.
GaovBS i. HILL., Acting Seoretary of Agricult$r .
nol Sterilizing Solution. U. S. v. The Mynol .:
f guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. No. 2144. Sam .
i ^ : :
product bore .
andh ae~ 4t
failed to be
@, the O t
; upon a repo
rig shipment b
ch 21, 1939, f
ged to be
unwarranted claims regarding its fflfS
nfectant and preserver of surgical ins'
a plain and correct ingreadiint mtat.nf
: .. $ *: ,
States attorney for the Eastern Dis.tt
rt by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
against the Mynol Chemical Co., .a.
y it in violation of the Insecticide AMct o
rom Philadelphia, Pa., into the State of
living Solution which was miSbrandef.
anded in that the statements, "M ol
y Recommended As A Reliable Ai.
... .... .. :::$'E:'
..: : ]iii
.I *. 1415 I
.... .. .U.t .
u, thereof were the n:
itIe having fungicidal
. inert substances or
iber 6, 1939, a plea
fla for th'
i on the
,ber 16, 1
misbranding of .
Odorless Fly S
Grlmn Bros., I.
Nos. 51163-D, 5t
Griffin #2 Odo, 1
ore false efficacy
ion of cresylic adi
ted on the labe
which failed totbA
the United States
the Secretary of
:ion against Griffin Bros., Ih
nation of the Insecticide Act oy
1039, from Portland. Oreg., in
- Griffin #2 Odorless Fly Mj
percentagee amount of each ingredient
dal) properties and the total percent-
ts stated plainly and correctly upon
hospitall Cresolis; and misbranding of
my and Red Griffin #1 Perfumed Fly
Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F.
ess Fly Spray and the Red
claims. The Hospital Cr'
d and larger proportions of
Its phenol coefficient was
ear the required ingredient
attorney for the District
Agriculture, filed in the dis
., Portland, Oreg., alleging
f 1910 on or about July 12,
to the State of Washington
ray. Red Griflin #1 Per
Cresolis, which wereadulterated or misbranded insecticides
itaL Cresolis was alleged tq be
r fell helow the professed standard
adulterated in that its strength
and quality under which it was
*4...meiy, "99/100% Cresylic Acid 50% Phenol Co-Efcient 5 by
t:-, .* Method." It was misbranded hiso in that the statements, "99/100%
M ot&Acid 50% Phenol Co-Efficient 5 by F. D. A. Method," borne
bbel, were false and misleading -nd by reason thereof, it was labeled
Rqt *o[ceive and mislead purchasers, since it consisted of cresylic acid in
:rbig_ in less than 50 percent and possessed a phenol coefcient of less
w n tested by the F. D. A. method. It was misbranded further in
I teesnisted partially of inert substances or ingredients, namely, water
ri, and the name and percentage amount of each inert substance
!e. iiit were not stated plainly and correctly upon the label; nor in lieu
*.i...te.e the name and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient
jigicidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert substances
stated plainly and correctly upon the label.
-Griffin #2 Odorless Fly Spray and the Red Griffin #1 Perfumed
were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Red Griffin
.. fly Spray" and "Red Gtiin #1 Perfumed Fly Spray," borne
1 ale~, were false and misleading a~d by reason thereof they were labeled
deceive and mislead parchasers shlce they were not effective controls
.bvember 2, 199, a plea of gultl was entered and a fine of $50 was
...: ii "- GRovF B. T..,. Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
U*h handling of Hits-It Liquid. 'Sq v. Hits-It Manufaeturing Co., Inc.
....P.lea of guilty. Fine, $45. (I. &. F. No. 2145. Sample Nos. 51250-.-D,
5 !:..: ;T 91-D, 51592-D.) -
S.:om each of the three shipdvltm of this product were found to be
.A wm..4.. flfl iflofl .d.La TT.s..d-nA' CS+04t an-.-,*... Sn.. 4.Inp. flirm.d...1n4 nE8 M in.
aL, Act ig secretary of
*UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IIn llll1ilI 111 088 44 ll
3 1262 05248
. .: f -. .:..
. .. ... ** *:. :
S... :* .
.... .Hi.. .
.H -ii. .
INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 1711-1730
Abco Pine Disinfectant:
American Brush Co-------
Aphicide No. 10:
Aphicide Spray Manufacturing
Bronco Pine-All Disinfectant:
Uncle Sam Chemical Co., Inc__
Churchill Manufacturing Co.,
Cresolene Disinfecting Fluid:
Cahn Manufacturing Co---
Ergang. Lena ---------
Flyfo Liquid Spray :
G. E. Specialty Co--------
Miller. Harry--- ---...- -
Spodek, Julius.. ---------
G. E. Specialty Co--...---
Granowitter, Albert ---
Miller, Harry----- ----
Spodek, Julius ---------
Glessner's Liquid Ant KiJIler:
Glessner, L. C---------
G-M Liquid Spray:
G. E. Specialty Co---- --
Spodek. Julius.... ----
Harris Blu-Rib-Un Spray:
Harris, R. L., Co---
Griffin Bros., Inc.--...
N. J. No.
De Pree Co., Inc, -
terziizing Solution : -
Mynol Chemical Co., InC. ....."
al Disinfectant: "
Diamond Drug & Magnesia& w1
Kaplan.. J.. J------ --,l
a 90-10 Dust :: .
Niagara Sprayer & Chemidl J!
o., Iae.R ". ..:
~Jo. I ----- -- -.:t- -- :...
old Spray: '.. "i
Caperton Chemical Co., e-
riffin 4 2
Uo ........ -- -
- Spray: *::i-
vitter Albert_-. _.--
. Julius----- -.
1 Perfumed Fly .p.a '
Odorless Fly Spray: "
Bros., Inc.--.--_.c I
-. ... .
Co 1 ent
. 1 Fine Disinfectant& :
rw-ta Ia Hi!
""" "' ":. ..i
Weinkle Co .------------ -.. :.
Weinkle. Isaac..------.. -ji
Weinkle's Perfume Crystals: "i:
No. 1 Pine Disinfectant: .. .;
Pine Cleanser: .".
Whiz Bed Bug Destroyer: :ii
Hollingshead, R. M., Corpoaqg
a .-.,. . -- E
Inc ----.---. .:
....; "e i