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:
AA00008549:00033

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text



if.., I. F. 1731-1745
*1' *


Issued August 1940


.*I.
if j:h;,~ JI V
.4
~1tTI~" 2'
H ~ 111W afl
4
I
-1 ~tii A 71j
a
* .HU.=S4139**.*H*.t.. ift
~wnIlI1r:.i&"~. 'r -.

,&ta. ~ ~
tnijtri;~.
.1*
~~HLdflJk ~* ~.


I

I.....1
It


tited States


Department


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


ES


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given, pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]
1731-1745


- a -A- *A-.


.by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., June 18, 1940]
saUding of Pynosol. U. S. v. Pymosol Laboratories, Inc. Plea of
Itt. Fine, $25. (I. & F. No. 2142. Sample No. 60022-D.)
luct possessed a phenol coefficient of less than that stated on the
bhe label failed to bear the required ingredient statements.
lary 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District


BI '4, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
art an information against Pynosol Laboratories, Inc., Chicago, Ill.,
ipment in interstate commerce on or about November 22, 1938, from
.11,, into the State of New York of a quantity of Pynosol which was
.. fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
ie was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of an
' ubstance, namely, water, and the name and the percentage amount thereof
|.| .tated, plainly and correctly on the label; nor in lieu thereof were
.I4 percentage amount of each ingredient of the article having fungi-
l tbneidal) properties, and the total percentage of the inert substance
....t, stated plainly and correctly on the label. It was alleged to be
.ffurther in that the statement "Phenol Co.Eff 18.75 FDA" was false
.g, and the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the
fIce it possessed a phenol coefficient of less than 18.75, as deter-
IetF. D. A. method.
r'2, 1940, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $25 was imposed.
.. CLAUDE R. WICKAEn, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


- j
Ku papding of Kotoproof. U. S. v. Universal Chemical Laboratories, Inc.
Meda to the court. Judgment of guilty on charge that product was
iHott; oft the declared volume. Not guilty on charges that product was
pewoniss -and that clalnms of moth proofing eieaey were false and
9tS"ad4al. flue, 925 and costs. (I. & P. No. 2038. Sample No. 50319-C.)
.il,


contents of the cont


,.Ibd ared en the label.
twas harmless to human
afries, et eetera, which
W6; 1988, the United
lKItag u-pon a report by
w. a eormiikaoi against
3Id., allegig shipment
ipari. South Bend, .TInd., i
' iieh was a misbranded


.ainer of this product were less than 1 gallon, the
The labeling of the article bore a representation
Beings and: animals and would mothproof clothes,
were alleged' to be false and misleading.
States attorney for the Northern District of In-
r the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
the Universal Chemical Laboratori s, I 4c, South
in interstate commerce on or dout' epthnilbe.. 2,
nto the State of Wisconsin Qf a quantity of Koto-
Sinsecticide within the meaphia of the Ipsecticide


JUDGMENT


:4
Iii ~
I


a,. M


i..iAlanA





470


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


gun. Any material made from animal fibre may be
proof. Spray libetaly and evenly. Hold the spray
the material and cover every inch of the fabric with
small sponge moistened with Kotoprof and rubbed
and flaps helps to insure protection in those places.


or ruffled up while spraying in order that
the fibre. Upholstered furniture may be
except that special care must be taken to
plete protection it ~is necessary to use abo
two to three pints for a chair, depending
material should be re-treated with Kotopr


the spra
treated
impregna
ut four p
upon, the
oof as t


safely treated with Koto-
gun about one foot from
a fine mist. A cloth or
on seams, pockets, cuffs


Fu


y mE
the
te th
)ints
size.
ie dr


rs should be brushed
iy reach the base of
same as any fabric,
te stuffing. For cornm-
for a davenport and
After dry cleaning
y cleaning chemicals


weaken its effectiveness. Steam cleaning or laundering does not affect ma-
terials moth-proofed with Kotoproof. Kotoproof kills moths and
their larvae and when properly applied renders material moth-proof for a period
of one year. tproomay stety ue&o furas It wiUl not spot, stain, or
shrink the finest fabrics and does not affect dyes. It is not necessary to cover
or protect silk linings. Kotoproof the Perfect Moth-Master Is
Thoroughly Safe ~ArdDependMt e Kotoproof is sold under a binding
money-back guarantee to give full satisfaction when used according to direc-
tions. Kotoproof cannot harm the finest fabrics and when applied renders
material moth-proof for one year. Kotoproof kills moths and their
larvae and protects furs, coats, dresses, suits, tropical worsteds, sweaters, felt
hats, skirts, sports suits, flannel trousers, bathing suits, golf hose, blankets,
babies' woolens, scarfs, mohair covered furniture, cushions, davenports, drapes,
rugs, carpets, felt in pianos, automobile robes, automobile rugs, automobile
cushions and automobile upholstery against moth infestation. One spraying
protects for a full year. Moth Worms Starve To Death on Kotoproofed Ma-
terials. Kotoproof is harmless to humans and animals *is
thoroughly safe."
On November 2, 1989, the case came on for trial before the court in lieu of a
jury, and on February 29, 1940, the court handed down the following memo-
randum opinion:
SmoK, Judge. "The information charges misbranding under the Federal Insec-
ticide Act in that: (1) the product was not a mothproofer as represented on the


I


container, (2) the container contained less than was represented, to wit, 1 United
States gallon, (3) the product was not harmless to humans and animals and
thoroughly safe as represented on the label.
"The evidence as 4 o-the first specification was rather conflicting. Several
witnesses for the Government made experiments which indicated the article
did not render cloth material mothproof. As against this, a number of witnesses
testified that they used Kotoproof and found it very satisfactory-no moths
appearing after its application. If this were the only specification I would be
inclined to say that there is a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt.
"On the second specification, however, the testimony shows that the container
was 10 percent short of 1 gallon. I cannot agree with counsel for the defendant
that this is an immaterial deficiency. Ten percent is a considerable amount


to be short in a container advertised to contain 1 full
"As to the third spheitation, testimony shows
harmless to persons if it were taken into the stoma
however, as a beverage or as an edibej and I. think


gall
Kot
ch.
the


on.
oproof
It is
clear


would not be
not advertised,
intent is to say


that it is ha-mlessto humans and animals when sprayed as directed.
be et eds for defendant to change its legend with reference to
lessAess or saody of the article and say that it is harmless and
safe w.n applied .ordi.g to directi0s, but that it is harmful if


It would
the harm-
thoroughly
persons or


*;






1731-1745]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


471


the label. 1
arsenate and
declared on t
as an active
only the copp
On June 6
York, acting


Ansbaceher's


Ansbor


dust


wits


found


to contain


calcium


calcium arsenite combined, and more inert ingredients than were
he label. The labeling of the latter product listed bordeaux mixture
ingredient; whereas the bordeaux mixture was not all active but
er contained therein was active.


1939, the United
upon a report by


court an information against t
alleging shipment in interstate


and July
Jersey, a
ments of
violation


, 1938, from New Y


o
(


nd Maryland, of one
Ansbacher's Ansbor
of the Insecticide Act


Ansbacher's Ansbor wa
"76.8% Active Ingredients
Arsenite, and not less thal
iff3i@2.%, Arsenic (as n
resented that the standard
not less Than 76.8 percent
bined calcium arsenate an
ingredients, and not less
whereas the strength and
product was alleged to be
false and misleading, and


deceive


mislead


Sta
the
ie A
con
)rk,
shil
Dus
of


alleged


tes attorney
Secretary of
Lnsbacher-Sie
amerce on or
N. Y., into th
)ment of Ans
;t that were
1910.


for the East
Agriculture,
gle Corporati
about April
ie States of I
sbacher's Ans
adulterated


to be adulterated


ern Distr
filed in
ion, Brool
22, May ;
North Cal
bor and
and mis


in that


*ict
the
klyn
27, J
rolin
thri
brat


of New
district
, N. Y.,
rune 10,
la, New
ee ship-
ided in


statements,


(not less than 70.0. Calcium Arsenate and Ca


n 6.8% Copper Sulphat
metallic) not less than
1 and quality of the art
of active ingredients, r
d calcium arsenite, not
than 26 percent of
purity of the article
misbranded in that th
that by reason of said


purchasers,


e). Inert
26.0%," bo
icle were s
not less tha
more than
arsenic, ex
fell below


ingredients
roe on the I
;uch that it
in 70 percent
i 23.2 percent
pressed as
such stand


not
abel
cont
t of
t of
met
rd.


above-quoted statements
statements, it was labeled


since it contained


smaller


proportion


lcium
more
, rep-
ained
corn-
inert
allic;
This
were
so as
ns of


active ingredients and combined calcium arsenate and calcium arsenite, a larger
proportion of inert ingredients, and a smaller proportion of arsenic, expressed as
metallic, than were stated on the label.


Ansbacher's Ans
alleged to be adul
Arsenate and Calc
not less than 6.0%
represented that tl
tained 45 percent
*dlM ed 't .-mor


bor Dust,
terated in


n each of the three
that the statements


ium Arsenite---not less
, Inert Ingredients-no
he standard and quality
of calcium arsenate a
e*.-than 49 percent of


thai
t moi
y of
nd c
inert


bordeaux mixture was active; whereas the
of calcium arsenate and calcium arsenite c
inert ingredients, and all of the bordeaux
.copper in the bordeaux mixture was active.
branded in that the above-quoted statement
misleading, and by reason of the said state


an


shipments
, "Active
i.0%, Dry


re th
the,
alclu
ing
icle


49.0%,"
icle wer
arsenite


ieut?
itain


combined and m
mixture was n
This product
ts, borne on th<


of this product, was
Ingredients-Calcium
Bordeaux Mixture-


borne on the label,
e such that it con-
combined, that it


5, and that
ed less than
ore than 49
ot active, bu
was alleged
e label, were


ments, it was labeled so as


all of the
45 percent
percent of
t only the
to be mis-
false and
to deceive


and mislead purchasers, since it contained less than 45 percent of calcium
arsenate and calcium arsenite combined, and more than 49 percent of inert ingre-
dients, and all of the bordeaux mixture was not active.
On February 7, 1940, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $400 was
imposed.


CLAuDE it


WICKARD, Acting


Secretary of


Agriculture.


1784. Adulteration and misbranding of Niagara Vegetable Garden Dust or
Spray, Niagara Suspenso Lead Arsenate, and Niagara Copotex. U. 5. v.
Niagara Sprayer & Chemical Co., Inc. Pleas of guilty. Fines. $200
and $200. (I. & F. Nos. 2143, 2155. Sample Nos. 35220-D, 48937-D,
4489B1-D, 52279-D, 54275-D, 55349-D.)
The'Vegetable Garden Dust or Spray contained less tricalcium arsenate, less
onntnro 1act oiraai* a-nn Omotoa11bi\ onnj1 vnnro inar inaotllanftic t-han ca-rn cat-aiAi


I





472


INSECTIOIDE- .AC


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


Michigan, of quantities of Niagara Vegetable Garden Dust or Spray, iagara
Suspense Lead Arsenate, and Niagara opotex, which were adulterated and
misbranded within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The Vegetable Garden Dust or Spray, in both shipments, was alleged to be
adulterated min that its strength and purity fell below the professed standard
and quality under which it was sold, namely, "Active Ingredients Tri-Calcium
Arsenate not less than 21.0%, Copper oE Bordeaux not less than 8.6%, Inert
Ingredients not over 70.4 (total) 100 Arsenic (as metallic) not less than 7.8%."
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted statements
the label, were false and misleading, and it was labeled so as to deceive and
mislead purchasers, since it contained less than 21 percent of tricalcium arsenate,
less than 8.6 percent of copper, less than 7.8 percent of total arsenic (as metal-
lic), and more than 70.4 percent of inert ingredients.----
The Suspenso Lead Arsenate was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength
and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was
sold, namely, "Arsenic as metallic in water soluble forms not more than .5%."
It was alleged to be adulterated further, since it contained a substance or sub-
stances that would be injurious to vegetation when used as directed. --
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "Arsenic as metallic
in water soluble forms not more than .5%" was false and misleading, and the
article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since it contained
arsenic, as metallic, in water-soluble forms in a proportion greater than 0.5
percent,
The Copotex was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, namely,
"Monohydrated Copper Sulphate not less than 20.00%, Copper (as metallic) not
less than 7.00% (Equivalent in Copper Sulphate Crystals 27.4%), Inert Ingredi-
ents not over 62.50%."
The Copotex was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted state-
ments were false and misleading, and the article was labeled so as to deceive
and mislead purchasers, since it contained monohydrated copper sulfate in a
proportion less than 20 percent, copper (as metallic) in a proportion less than 7
percent, the equivalent in copper sulfate crystals in a proportion less than
27.4 percent, and inert ingredients in a proportion more than 62.50 percent
On January 8, 1940, pleas of guilty were entered and a fine of $200 in each
ease was imposed, a total of $400.
CLAOUDE R. WICKARD, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1735. Adulteration and misbranding of Termox Roach Destroyer. U. S. v. Termo
Chemical Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $75. (I. & F. No. 2129. Sample Nos.
8734-D, 22133-fD)
Both shipments of this product contained inert ingredients in excess of the
percentages declared on the labels. One shipment was deficient in borax and
contained no sodium fluoride, a declared ingredient In the other shipment
a portion was deficient in borax and contained no sulfur, a declared ingre-
dient; the remaining portion of this shipment contained no sodium fluoride nor
sulfur, declared ingredients. The latter shipment was also misbranded in
certain other respects.
On August 10, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fil~4ijn t.t.
district court an information against the Termo Chemical Co., a corporation,
Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910, on
or about February 18 and July 18, 19a8, from Chicago, Ill., into the States of
Michigan and Wisconsin, of quantities of Termox Roach Destroyer which was
an adrnlPra2tl nd nmnshrandd inspptipidp






1731-1745 I


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


473


borne on the labels in t
aid by reason thereof
purchasers, since (in t
and less than 25 perc
-f" inert ingredients a


he shipment
the article
:he former s
ent of bora
md (in the


combination of powdered pyrethrum
the active ingredients, but contained
sulfur, and did contain more than
*emtining portion of this shipment co


thrum flowers and
tloride nor sulfur,
.The article in the
father in that the
I ia.ot poisonous to
...*tipment, and the
'''hiS Roaches If U


of July 18
was labeled
hipment)
x, and dii
latter sh


flowe
less


40 p
iutair


borax as the active in
and did contain more I
shipment of July 18,
statements, "But harm]
people or to household
statements, "Termox I
sed As Directed Sure


rs,
th


, 1938,


were false and misleading,


.d so as to deceive
it contained no so0
d contain more th
ipment) a portion
sodium fluoride,
an 25 percent of t


k.a
diu
an
c
an
)or


recentt of inert ingredien
ied a combination of pow
gredients, but contained


than
1938,
less t
d pet
Roachd
Dea


40 percent of inert
was alleged to be
o Pets and People
s," borne on all la
Destroyer Kills
th to Roaches *


.: The roach likes Termox-but Termox kills the roach-
.. ter bag. Once eaten and tracked into the nests by their
ttrl.riniox and likewise are destroyed. Termox is deadly
'lilections: Punch holes in top of can. Then shake Termi
Ifl4!Mrefully around sinks, pipes, counters, shelves, unc
t'titto all cracks, crevices, etc. Because of the tendency
ha! -breed, it may require several applications of Tern
Sna'though you may be rid of roaches and water bugs i
a. .little powder dusted around their haunts, as a consta
t.. t4nekthat may enter from the outside. A Destroyer
n:. the.:.e labels of a portion of this shipment, were false at
f: lbhilthieof the article was labeled so as to deceive an
t ee in the said shipment it was poisonous and a port
'rdtaehes or water bugs when used as directed.
Of."November 14, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered a
bit imped.
CLAUDE R. WICKARD, Acting Secre
'.. n ^ ;i""."' .
.. $.|9..-. branding of G. D. Cleaning Powder and Kemiko 5
Manufacturing Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $104
,,.::'! Sample Nos. 62578-C, 12107-D, 29746-D, 29747-D.)


-and
:r feet,


toc

ler
y o
0ox


t i
nt
A
id
d
on


roa
powd
and
)f all
to


LI]
V


ts
the


nd mislead
im fluoride,
60 percent
contained a
d boras as
ax, and no
ts, and the
dered pyre-
no sodium
ingredients.
misbranded
* It
iels of that
Vater Bugs
* Uses:
cousin, the
young will


ches.


* *


ler thoroughly
into drawers
pests to hide
destroy them.


is advisable
protection
preventive,
misleading,
mislead pur
thereof wc


nd a


tary o

in 1..
0. (I.


to keep
against
" borne
and by
chasers,
)uld not


fine of $75 was

f Agriculture.

U.S. v. Kemiko
& F. No. 2100.


9f.e 9. D. Cleaning Powder was falsely represented to be
t.' effective to kill all odors and all germs, and to ster


iected. The label for
: tduired ingredient
t Di preventative of
B e'as a remover o
t ft Specified.
..0 "Jnie 2, 1939, the
flu~tporn a report by
kt'iftrmation against t


the shipment of February 9, 1938,
statements. The Kemiko 5 iu 1 was
contagion, to have full germ-killing
f all odors, as a sterilizer, and as a


safe and nontoxic,
ilize when used as
also failed to bear
falsely represented
powers, and to be
disinfectant in the


United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
he Kemiko Manufacturing Co., a corporation, Irvington,


. alklegiDng shipment in interstate commerce, on or about February 9, 1937,
'at bruary 9, February 24, and April 15, 1938, from Irvington, N. J., into the
Is, "of New Y6rk and Pennsylvania of quantities of G. D. Cleaning Powder
if..pmehts) and Kemiko 5 in 1 (2 shipments) that were misbranded fungicides
t tl the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
"4 |,:0. D. Cleaning Powder in each shipment was alleged to be misbranded
B. at' the statements, "Germicide, Detergent, Cleaning Powder, Deodorizes,
111 :=.a ..l a -, ,m l-l a -m= nl


|
t




Air


t


To sterilize feeding utensils, etc. Use two tablespoons


hot water
non-toxic
misleading
since it w
lize, anid
poisonous
9, 1938,
substance


: Soak for five minutes. *
to humans, animals and birds,"
g and the article was labeled so a
rould not destroy all odors, would
would not disinfect when used


and was not safe under
was misbranded further


namely


sodium


SSafe-'G.
borne on th
s to deceive
not kill all
as directed


Conditions. The
that it consisted


chloride, and the name and


G. D. t
D.' is s
e label,.
and rni
germs,
; and i


lot si
part i


o each galloff 6f
afe because it is
were false and
lead purchasers
would not steti-
t was not non-
hipped February
illy of an inert


the percentage amount


thereof were not stated plainly and correctly on the label: nor in lieu thereof
were the name and the percentage amount of each substance or ingredient
having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and the total percentage of the Tierf
substances so present therein, stated plainly and correctly ou the liabel:
The Kemiko 5 in 1 (both shipments) was alleged to be misbranded in that
the statements, "Kemiko 5 in 1 Kills Germs Disinfects Removes
Odors A Sterilizing Agent ** Removes all odors. [folder] Disin-
fects Kills Germs Sterilizing Agent. A little 5 in 1 in water as a
wash or spray makes everything 'Hospital Clean' 5 in 1 was developed
by scientists to be more than a cleaner-it cleans, disinfects and deodorizes all


in one operation. It is
its kind on the market.
swings, feed and water
a heaping teaspoonful
heaping tablespoonful ol
rooms, cages, shipping


manufactured under patent and is the only product of
For proper cleaning of bird cages, bottoms, perches,


cups,


of 5 in
fincrates,
crates,


concrete, gravel, cinder etc.).
sprinkling runs. 5 in 1 is most
surfaces use cold or lukewarm
is harmful to paint and varnisi


five minutes in a hot
above. and
powers Wa
clothes, and diapers.
to prevent contagion.


5 in
is an
shing
Wash
One


wash thoroughly in a solution o0


1 in


quarts


of water.


to two quarts of water
whelping boxes, pens,
An ordinary sprinkling
efficient in hot water but.
water only. fHot water


to sp
and i
can
on pa


Shot water, using
* *
ray or wash cage
runs (dirt, grass,
may be used for
inted or varnished


without anything in it


Sterilize feed and water pans by soaking for


1 solution. Use same amount of 5
efficient antiseptic disinfectant with
and sterilizing as well as deodorizin
ing and sterilizing dishes, especially
heaping tablespoonful of 5 in 1 in t


in 1 as directed
full germ killing
g babies' bottles,
during sickness,
wo quarts of hot


water will take care of all above conditions," borne on the label,
and misleading, and it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead r
since it would not prevent contagion, it did not have full germ-killii
it would not kill all germs, it would not remove all odors, it would
everything 'hospital clean,' it was not a sterilizing agent, it would nc
and it was not an effective disinfectant in the dilution specified.
The G. D. Cleaning Powder (both shipments) was also alleged
branded under the Food and Drugs Art as amended, as reported in
*- -* .. i


were false
purchasers,
ng powers,
not make
It sterilize,

to be mis-
notices of


,


474 NSEOTIOIDE ACT .

runways. Disinfects-'G. D.' is widely used in dog and cat hospitals,
kennels, catteries and by veterinarians, where an effective disinfectant is vitally
essential. Kills Germs-'G. D.' will kill germs in the presence of organic matter,
assuring healthful surroundings. Sterilizing Agent-'G. D.' may be
used effectively for the sterilization of instruments, hospital equipment, pots
and pans. It is absolutely safe and efficient. Ecouomical-'G. D.' is
economical because it cleans, disinfects, removes odors, kills germs and steri-
lizes. All these five functions in one operation. It is the only known product
of its type on the market. Contents of this package should make atj
gallons of 'G. D.' solution. To sterilize laboratory instrumentsass-
ware, microscopic slides, centrifuge tubes, etc. Use %% (% oz. G. D. t"galITon
of water bv weight) solution at a temperature of 140 F. Soak for five niifftftes.






f31-1745]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


475


used-.as directed. Its
required by law. The
Compound, the Deodora
ingredient statements
-*alsely represented to
Disinfectant possessed
The cans containing tl
declared weight and tl
of the declared volume.
flisinfectant, the Pine


label
label


also failed
for the Coal


to bear an ingredient statement as
Tar Disinfectant, the Coil Cleaning


nt Disinfectant, and the Pine Disinfectant did not
is required by law. The Coal Tar Disinfectant
possess a higher phenol coefficient and the Deod
t lower phenol coefficient than that stated on the
e Glassware Sterilizer were found to be short o
ose containing the Deodorant Disinfectant were
The labels for the Glassware Sterilizer, the Deod
Tree Disinfectant, and the Glass Sterilizer bore


efficacy claims.
, .On November 21, 1935, and Jul
District of New Jersey, acting u
mied in t.he district court inform.
thae Ritz Chemical Co., Newark, r
.,gust 27, 1937, and May 11, Ju
1938, he transported in interstate
g ..New, York and Pennsylvania,
pound, Ritz High Coefficient Coal
Opmpound, Ritz Glassware Steril
.inf.ectant, Ritz Pine Tree D
...e .emsbranded fungicides with


ne 6,
ipon
tions
. J.,
me 6,


cc
q
T
IZ
isi
in


,^The.,.Beer Coil Cleaning Compoun
as tements, "Does not contain any
water ...sterilizes glassware. Quick
germs," were false and misleading,
s..d mislead purchasers since it did
fthan ,.used as directed, it would
a,.hacteria germs. Misbranding o


1939, the
reports b
against
alleging
I July 26,


United States
y the Secretar
Walter L. SchI
that on or aboi
September 10,


)mmerce from New
uantities of Ritz
ar Disinfectant i2
r 2 shipments), I
nfectant, and Rit:
the meaning of th
id was alleged to t


lye
an
and
con
not
f th


* One t
d positive. *
the article was
tain lye, namely
sterilize glassw
is product aud (


designated as "Coil Cleaning Compound" was alleged in
.ted: partially of inert substances or ingredients, namely


Sodtzm hydroxide and sodi
.frthe inert substances or
A..e-label; nor in lieu there
AubAtances or ingredients
tetal 'percentages of the
correctly on the labels.
l-'kt.e Ritz High Coefficien
Itt..t it consisted partial


atto
y of
wartf
ut Mi
and


bear
was
orant
label.
f the
short
orant
false


rney for the
Agriculture,
., trading as
arch 7, 1935,
October 10,


ark, N. J., into the States
Beer Coil Cleaning Cornm-
shipments), Coil Cleaning
Ritz Perfection Deodorant
z Glass Sterilizer, which
e Insecticide Act of 1910.
e misbranded in that the


?aspoonf
* Ki
labeled
, sodium
are and
)f the p


ul to a
lls all
so as to
Shydrox
would
product t


that the
substance


basin of
bacteria
deceive
ide, and
not kill
hat was


articles con-
other than


um carbonate, and the names and percentage amou
ingredients were not stated plainly and correctly
of were the names and the percentage amounts of
having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and
inert substances or ingredients, stated plainly i


t Coal Tar Disinfectant was


y of


and the name and the percent
correctly on the label; nor in
&momats of the substances or in
erties, and the total percentage
thereie stated plainly and corre
ittrei:in that the statement


alleged to be misbranded


an inert substance or ingredient, namely, water,
ge amount thereof were not stated plainly and
lieu thereof were the names and percentage
gredients having fungicidal (bactericidal) prop-
of the inert substance or ingredient so present
ctly on the label. This product was misbranded
"High Coefficient Coal Tar Disinfectant," with


zie8pect*to one of the shipments, and the statements
Disinfectant Minimum Coefficient 16 *
Uge. one part of High Coefficient to 320 parts of
other shipment, were false and misleading and it v
afmislread the purchaser, since it was not a high
Sh1% latter shipment did not have a minimum coe
aM effectivee disinfectant in the dilution specified.
S.....The Ritz Glassware Sterilizer was alleged to


statements, "Glassware Sterilizer Clear


is Sterilizes


"High Coefficient Coal Tar
* Disinfectant *
water," with respect to the
ras labeled so as to deceive
coefficient disinfectant, and
efficient of 16 and was not


be misbranded


* Ritz


that the
Sterilizer





476


INSECTICIfDE


ACT


and the name and percentage amount of the said substance were
plainly and correctly on the label; nor in lieu thereof were the


[N. J., I, F.,

not stated
name and


percentage amount of each and every substance or ingredient .having fungicidal
(bactericidal) properties, and the total percentage of the inert substance or
ingredient so present therein stated plainly and correctly on the label. This
product was misbranded further in that the statements, to wit, "Coefficient 6
* Germicide for general use. A valuable preparation having Deodorizing,
Disinfecting and Antiseptic Properties Directions This Modern
Finger-Tip Atomizer Spray from bottles in your Taprooms, Clubs, Restaurants,
Hotel Lobby, Kitchen, Toilet, Dining Room or any public place. Repeat Spray-
ing as long as necessary. Deodorizes While It Disinfects An efficient


disinfectant A Better Theatre
and tends to combat infection
obnoxious odors and vermin *
were false and misleading, and
mislead purchasers, since it post
it would not disinfect rooms an


Spray. Does not injure fabrics.
or contagion. Combats
Contents One Quart," borne (
the article was labeled so as to
sessed a phenol coefficient of much
d objects when used as a spray of


R
and
on t]
dece
less
the


Sres' es
he label,
eive and
than 6,
atmos-


here, it would not combat and dispel all obnoxious odors and vermin, and the
net contents of each can were less than 1 quart. I
The Ritz Pine Tree Disinfectant was alleged to be misbranded in that it
consisted partially of an inert substance or ingredient, water, and the iname
and percentage amount of the said 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 having fungicidal (bactericidal) prop-
erties, and the total percentage of the inert substance or ingredient so present
therein, stated plainly and correctly on the label. This product was alleged to
be misbranded further in that the statement, "Disinfectant *
part of Pine Tree to 60 parts of water," borne on the label, was false anid
misleading, and it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since
it was not an effective disinfectant in the dilution specified.
The Glass Sterilizer was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,
"Glass Sterilizer, Cleans Sterilizes Glassware Sterilizer. *
Ritz Sterilizer Directions. To obtain high sparkling Glass, use one
teaspoonful of Ritz Glassware Sterilizer to a basin of water Ritz is
used for sterilizing all kinds of Glassware, Ritz Sterilizes Bar Fix-
tures, Drain Boards and all Tin, Zinc, Brass, Copper, Glass, Marble and Porce-
lain, Dishes Ritz Sterilizes," borne on the label, were false and mis-
leading and the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead
since it was not a sterilizer and would not sterilize the objects ant
mentioned above.
The Beer Coil Cleaning Compound and Coil Cleaning Compound alto wre
alleged to be misbranded under the Federal Caustic Poison Act, as reported
in notice of judgment No. 97 published under that act. 1 ;i
On January 26, 1940, these cases having been consolidated and a plea of
guilty having been entered to the combined information, a flue of $146 was
imposed, and a further fine of $1,260 was imposed but payment was suspended
and the defendant was put on probation for 2 years. "
CLAUDE B. WIOKA&I, Acting Secretary of Agriczuture.
1738. Misbranding of Nicostick (nicotine and fish oil soap) and adulteratlon
and misbranding of Nicostick (nicotine and soap). IU. S.v. Garden Hose
Insecticide Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (I. & F. No. 2164. Sample
Nos. 54255-D, 54299-D.) .
The circular shipped with the Nicostick (nicotine and fish oil soap) bore
false efficacy claims and it failed to bear a correct ingredient statement. as a






1431-17451


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


477


'(nicotine and soap) which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
-Both products were alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Kill
the Bugs with your Garden Hose The 'Simplex' Garden Hose Sprayer *


makes spraying


* Effective


they love to hide. *
tridge into the cartridge cha
and you are ready to spray.
the control of other
poultry houses spray with Nic
circulars accompanying both


40%," borne on


the carton c(


Nicostic
mber, at
Nicostic
sucking
stick 01


* This gets
;k Just
tach the garden h
.k is an ideal and
insects. *
* rub cartridge on


the
inser
ose,
effec
To ki
roost!


products and the statement "N
)ntaining the Nicostick nicotinen


in
t
tu
ti
.11
s,1
ic
ie


.false and misleading; and that by reason thereof they were
deceive and mislead purchasers, since they would not control a
a'nd would not control lice and mites in poultry houses when
and Nicostick (nicotine and soap) contained less than 40 perci
alkaloid. The Nicostick (nicotine and fish oil soap) was al
branded further in that it consisted partially of inert substance
and the name and percentage amount of each and every in


ingredient were
were the name
having insectici
Or ingredients s


The Nicostick


not stated plainly and correctly o
and the percentage amount of


dal properties, and
io present therein s


(nicotine and soap)


Statement "Nicotine as alkaloid 40%,"
standard and quality of the article wei
loid in a proportion of not less than 40
fell below the professed standard and
it contained nicotine as alkaloid in a
*Oin February 21, 1940, a plea of gu
imposed.


the total


n the
each


sects right where
a Nicostick car-
rn on the water
ve insecticide for
lice and mites in
' contained in the
otine as Alkaloid
and soap), were
labeled so as to
II sucking insects


used


?nt
leg
'es
Lert


label; nor
substance


, 'S
in
or


as directed,
nicotine as
to be mis-
ingredients
substance or
lieu thereof
ingredient


percentage of the inert substances


ated plainly and correctly on the label.


was alleged


to


borne on the
re such that it
Percent; where
quality under
proportion less
ilty was entern


be ad
label,
conta
eas it
which
than


ulterated in that the
represented that the
ined nicotine as alka-
s strength and purity
h it was sold in that
40 percent.


d and a fine of $100 was


CLAUDE R.


WICKARD, Acting Secretary of


Agriu lture.


1789. Misbranding


of Slip-Easy


Hen


U. S. v. Riverside Chemical
which was later suspended.
52088-D.)


a Hot
Co.
(I.


use Spray and SIp-Easy II
Plea of nolo contendere. I
& F. No. 2150. Sample Nos.


deodorant.
FPine, $25,
52087-D,


The labeling of the Slip-Easy Hen House Spray bore false and misleading
representations regarding its efficacy in the control of certain insects. The con-
Stainers for the Slip-Easy Deodorant were found to be short in measure, and the
label failed to bear the ingredient statements required by law.
On September 18, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Riverside Chemical Co., a corporation,
North Tonawanda, N. Y., alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about
February 15, 1939, from North Tonawanda, N. Y., into the State of Pennsylvania
of a quantity of Slip-Easy Hen House Spray that was a misbranded insecticide
aid fungicide, and of a quantity of Slip-Easy Deodorant that was a misbranded
fungicide, within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
. The Slip-Easy. Hen House Spray was alleged to be misbranded in that the
'statement's, "Slip-Easy Hen House Spray Directions Spray the inte-
rior of the poultry house, dropping boards and roosts with Slip-Easy Hen House
Spray, it will rid the poultry house of lice, mites, flies, etc. To keep your poul-
try houses in a sanitary condition use Slip-Easy Hen House Spray," were false
and misleadinr.g, and the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead our-






INSECTICIDE ACT


ingredient having fungi'cidal (bacterieidSl) pre.rties, and the total
of the inert substances or ingredients, stated plainly and correctly o
On January 8, 1940, a plea of nolo contendere was entered and a
was imposed. On January 23, 1940, the court ordered that payment
be suspended.


CLAUDE R.


IWICKMD, Aoting Secreta y of


Agriculture.


1740. Misbranding of V. E. T. Skin Remedy. U. S. x. George T. Lambert, avid
Pereira, and George D. Lambert (The Creseent-Kelvan Co.). Pleas of
nolo contender. Fines, $250. (I. & F No. 2099. Sample No. 29929-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its effectiveness in the control of certain insects, and ft also failed to declare
the inert ingredients, as required by law.
On April 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Penn-
sylvania filed an information against George T. Lambert, David Pereira, and
George D. Lambert, trading as the Crescent-Kelvan Co., a business trust, Phila-
delphia, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendants on or about June 10, 1938,
from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey, of a quantity of
V.E.T. Skin Remedy which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of
the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of inert
substances or ingredients, namely, water and alcohol, which do not prevent,
destroy, repel, or mitigate insects and the name and percentage amount of each
inert substance ora.ingredient 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 article having insecticidal properties and the total percentage
of the inert substances or ingredients so present therein stated plainly and cor-
rectly on the label. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the state-
ment "Skin Remedy For Mange," borne on th
was false and.misleading and by reason thereof it was labeled so as to deceive
and mislead the purchaser since the said statement represented that it would
be an effective treatment or skin remedy for all varieties of mange ;
would not be an effective treatment or skin remedy for all varieties
The information also charged misbranding of this article and adultery aon an
kisbranding of various drig products shipped by the defendants in violation of
the Food and Drugs Act, as reported in notice of judgment No. 30990 published
under that act.
On December 8, 1939, the defendants entered pleas of nolo cotufendere.
January 5, 1940, the court imposed a fine of $250 for violation of both acts, said
fine to be apportioned equally among the three defendants.
CLAUDE R. WICtIa, Acting Sewwary of Agriculture.


1741. Adulteration and nmisbranding of insect powder. U. S. v. Jo
Tumbler (J. A. Tumbler Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine,
costs. (I. & F. NO. 2157. Satile No. 51644-D.) .
This product contained a smaller percentage of actve ingredients th
stated on the label; and a mixture of insect powder, cube root powder, an
had been substituted for insect powder. The label also failed to bear ti
dient statements required by law. .
On October 11, 1939, the United States attorney for the District of M
acting upon a report by the Secretary of griititure, filed in the distri
an information against Joseph A. Tumblt fr dang as the J. A. Tumbler
toriesg at Baltimore, Md., alleging slbpmtiX in interstate commerce on
February 16, 1939, from Baltimore, Md., into the State of Pennsylvan
n"n ov rn T .'ifn.h inC T Enc~w -.n T .n n.f. A4 n tm am w n nt I, n..-k K,.. n A n A 4 n 4.


seph A.
$25 ant
'an that
id borax
ie ingre-

aryland,
ct court
Labora-
r about
ia, of a
.. fl Sifl I n


478


LiN. .T., I. P.

percent e
n the label.
fine of $25
of the fine






1731-17451


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


479


thereof were the name and percent
having insecticidal properties, and
or ingredients, stated plainly and
On January 16, 1940, a plea of g
was imposed.


, CLAUDE R.


tage amount of each substance or ingredient
the total percentage of the inert substances
correctly on the label.
guilty was entered and a fine of $25 and costs


WICKARD, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1742. Misbranding of Seient
of guilty. Fine, $14
The label for this product
On March 2, 1939, the Uni
acting upon a report by the
an information against the


tie Fly Spray. U.
00. (I. & F. No. 208
bore false efficacy
ted States attorney
Secretary of Agric
All-Nu Products Cc


3


S.
*


v. All-Nu Products Co.


Sample No.


16151-D.)


Plea


claims.
Sfor the District of N'ew Jersey,
culture, filed in the district court
., a corporation, Camden, N. J.,


alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about February 12, 1938, from
Camden, N. J., into the State of Louisiana, of a quantity of Scientific Fly Spray
which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act


of 1910.
The article was
Fly Spray Kills Fl
close doors and wi
for larger rooms)


insects and
leading, and
deceive and
as directed.
* On Febru,
imposed.


alleged to be misbranded in
ies. Mosquitoes, moths *
undows and spray towards (
until room is well filled w


that the statements,
* Directions: For fl


ceiling 4
ith fine


(spray
mist.


destroy. Repeat operation when necessary," were
by reason of the said statements the article was
mislead purchasers, since it was not effective to kill


19, 1940,


a plea


of guilty


was entered


aMa


greater
Sweep


ientific
* *


quantities
up fallen


false and mis-
abeled so as to
flies when used


fine of $100 was


CLAUDE R.


WICKARD,


Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1743.


Misbranding of formaldehyde. U. S. v. Middlebrooke Lancaster, Inc.
of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 21-17. Sample No. 47348-D.)


Plea


-This product
as required by
On December
New York, acti
district court a


contained inert ingredients which were not declared on the label
the law.
27, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
ng upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
n information against Middlebrooke Lancaster. Inc.. Brooklyn.


-s-p


N. Y., alleging shipment by the said
about March 11, 1939, from the State
of a quantity of formaldehyde which
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910
The article was alleged to be mist
inert substances or ingredients, nam
name and percentage amount of each
on the label; nor in lieu thereof were
substance or ingredient having fung


total percentage of the inert
stated on the label.
On January 5, 1940, a plea c
and a fine of $50 was imposed.


substa


S


5'


company in interstate commerce on or
of New York into the State of Maryland.
was a misbranded fungicide within the


led in


that


it consisted partially


ely, water and methyl alcohol, and the
of said inert substances were not stated
Sthe name and percentage amount of the
icidal (bactericidal) properties, and the
nces or ingredients so present therein,


)f guilty was


entered on behalf of the defendant


CLAUDE R.


WICICARD,


Acting


Secretary


Agriculture.


1744. Misbranding of Shell Miil-Du-Spra. IUT. S. v. 10 Cans and 87 Cases of Shell
Mil-Du-Spra. Consent decrees of condemnation and forfeiture. Product
released to claimant for relabeling. (I. & F, Nos. 2162, 2165. Sample Nos.
56307-D, 76398-D.)
This product in each of the two shipments contained substances that would be


|






48f0 INS CTICIDE A C

and June 6, 1939, by the Shell Oil Co., from Martinez and San
respectively; and charging that the article was an adulterated
fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


[N. J., I.F.

Francisco, Calif.,
and misbranded


Adulteration of the article min each of the three shipments was aUlleged in that
it was intended for use on vegetation, and it contained a substance or sub-
stances that would be injurious to such vegetation when so used. The article
in all shipments was alleged to be adulterated further in that its strength and
purity fell below the professed standardtand quality under which it was sold,
namely, (pint, quart, and gallon cans) "Active Ingredients-93.70% by weight,
Water-5.30% by weight;" (half-pint cans) "Xctive Ingredients-93.70% by
weight, Inert Ingredients-6.30% by weight."
The article in the pint cans, quart cans, and gallon cans was alleged to be
misbranded in that the statements, "Active Ingredients-93.70% by weight,
Water-5.30% by weight," were false and misleading and it was labeled so as
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained active ingredients in
a proportion less than 93.70 percent and water in a proportion greater than
5.30 percent. The article in the half-pint cans was alleged to be misbranded in
that the statements, "Active Ingredients-93.70% by weight, Inert Ingredients
6.30% by weight," were false and misleading and it was labeled so as to deceive
and mislead purchasers, since it contained less than 93.70 percent by weight of
active ingredients, and inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 6.30
percent. The article in all of the cans was alleged to be misbranded further
in that the statements, (half-pint, quart, and gallon cans) "Shell Mil-Du-Spra
Soluble Garden Spray A Concentrated Copper Solution in Oil For The Spraying
of Gardens, Nurseries and Ornamentals," (pint, quart, and gallon cans) "For
use with Shell Nicona Sprayer in the control of Mildew, Blackspot, Peach Leaf
Curl," (half-pint cans) "For Use Only with Shell Nicona Sprayer in the Control
of Mildew, Blackspot, Peach Leaf Curl," borne on the labels, were false and
misleading, and it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since
it was not a concentrated copper solution and, when used as directed, it would
not control mildew, blackspot, or peach leaf curl. The article in the half-pint
cans was alleged to be misbranded further in that it contained inert substances
or ingredients, and the name and percentage amount thereof were not stated
plainly and correctly op the label; nor in lieu thereof were the name and per-
centage amount of each substance or ingredient having fungicidal properties,
and the total percentage of the inert substances or ingredients so present therein,


stated


plainly


shipped to Reno, Nev.,


correctly


upon


the label.


article in


was alleged to be misbranded further in tha


ment "Net Contents 1 Quart," borne on the label, was false a
since each of said cans contained less than 1 quart of the artic]
shipped to Reno, Nev., was alleged to be misbranded further in
ment, "For use with Shell Nicona Sprayer in the control of
Rot," borne on the label, was false and misleading and the article
as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since it would not control
On February 8 and March 20, 1940, the Shell Oil Company h
as claimant and having consented to the entry of decrees, jud
demnation and forfeiture were entered and it was ordered that
delivered to the claimant for relabeling, so as to comply with the


of 1910.


cLAUDE B.


WIcKAUD, Acting Secretary o


mnd
le.
tha
**


Wa


quart cans
t the state-
misleading,
The article
t the state-
Brown
s labeled so


brown rot.
having appeared
gments of con-
the product be
Insecticide Act

f Agricuhtre.


1i45. Misbranding of Hokol. UI. S. v. Lionel Hlockwald and Sigmund S. Heck-
wald (Hockwald Chemical Co.). Tried to the court. Judgment of
gity. Fine, $250. (I. & F. No. 2075. Sample No. 1S02XD.


of 1910.





1731-1745]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


481


with water for all ge
rating Room For HB
is high in germicidal


Insttu
lion-co
All Ge
the ut
Hokol
label,
for O
would
be an
would
On
Insect
is to


neral d
and Sol
strength


[isinfecting and


utions-*
h, yet lo'


cleansing purposes.


* For
in toxicity


ments-Hokol makes a solution in water i
rrosive to metals. In Rooms and Wards For
neral Disinfecting-* For use in washi
ility room. Hokol is without equal. *
is safe and thorough. It cannot harm hun
were false and misleading, since it would not I


erat


ing room


would


not carbolize, would


not be an effective disinfectant
effective disinfectant in the utili
not be a suitable disinfectant
June 13, 1939, the defendants fi


icide Act of 1910 does not p
kill bacteria. After the fil


Government,
opinion. On
the defendant
the informati
term "fungi"
whether the


the court
September
t having v
on were si
as used it
article w


behalf of the Governmen
guilty. On February 10,
fine of $125.


on Septe
8, 1939,
vaived a
cipulated,
n the act


n


rop
ing
iberi
the
trir
the


e



I'


The Op-


General Carbolizing-Hokol
. For Disinfecting Surgical


13
Di
ng
Fo
ran
be
no


for washing bed
ty room, would
for obstetrical
led a demurrer,
rly apply to disi
of arguments b
6, 1939, overrul


any propo
sinfecting
bed-pans, 1
r Obstetric
tissue," t
an effective
t disinfect


-pans or linen


not be
hygiene
on thl
nfectan
y defei
ed the


on. It is
ensils and
mns and in
Hygiene-
ne on the
isinfectant
struments,
would not


without equal, and
e.
e grounds that the
its, whose function
ndants and by the
demurrer without


case came on for trial before the court,
by jury. Most of the facts alleged in
only issues remaining being whether the


includes bacteria


fungicide.


and
1940,


Evidence


causing human


having


the defendant, the court
the court sentenced each


been


disease


introduced


found the defendants
Defendant to pay a


CLAUDE R.


INDEX TO


WICKARD, Acting Secretary of


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1731-1745


Ansbacher's Ansbor: N. J. No.
Anshor Dust:
.nshauater-Siegle Corporation_- 1733
Coil cleaning compound:
Ritz Chemical Co....- 1737
Schwartz, W. L..---------- 1737
Formaldehyde:
Middlebrooke Lancaster, Inc.- 1743
G. D. CleaninR Powder:
Kemiko Manufacturing Co.- 1736


Hokol:
Hockwald
Hockwald,
Hockwald,
Insect powder:
Tumbler.
Tumbler,
Kemiko 5 in 1:
Kemiko M
Kotoproof:
Universal


Chemical Co ----- 1745
Lionel------------ 1745
S. S--------- 1745


r. A --------
J. A., Laboratories_
manufacturingg Co---


Chemical


Laborato-


rules, Inc .---------------
Niagara Copotex:
. Suspenso Lead Arsenate:
SVegetable Garden Dust or Spray :
Niagara Sprayer & Chemical
Co., Inc- -----------------
1 Prosecution contested.
2Contains an opinion of the court.


1741
1741
1736
21732



1734


Nicostick (nicotine and fish oil soap) :
(nicotine and soap)
Garden Hose Insecticide Co... --
Pynosol:
Pynosol Laboratories, Inc---_-
Ritz Beer Coil Cleaning Compound:
Coal Tar Disinfectant
Deodorant Disinfectant:
Glass Sterilizer:
Glassware Sterilizer:
Pine Disinfectant :
Ritz Chemical Co......--------
Schwartz, W. L ...-------
Scientific Fly Spray:
All-Nu Products Co-----......-...
Shell 1il-Du-Spra :
Shell Oil Co .............. _- -----
Slip-Easy Deodorant:
Hen House Spray:
Riverside Chemical Co----......-
Termox Roach Destroyer:
Termo Chemical Co------ -
V E. T. Skin Remedy:
Crescent-Kelvan Co--------
Lambert, G. --------------
Lemhert, G. T...----------
Pereira, David ....... .......


1738
1731




1737
1737

1742
1744

1739
1735
1740
1740
1740
1740


Agriculture.




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
111 1111 0IHIlll l1111
3 1262 08582 4992


ii