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:
AA00008549:00035

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text

N, J., I. P. 1763-1777


Issoed April 1941


United


States


Department


Agriculture


AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]


1763-1777


[Approve4 by


the Actin


Secretary


of Agriculture,


Washington,


D. C.,


March


7, 19411


174. Misabranding of. Pine Disinfectant. I
of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 2
,.The bottle containers of this product
article than that stated on the label. The
ingredient statement.
.. On July 9, 1940, the United States ati
MIew York, acting upon a report by the S
dgetrict court an information against the
N. Y., alleging shipment in interstate comn
from New York, N. Y., into the State of
Pine Disinfeetant which was a misbranded
Insecticide Act of 1910.


The article was alleged to
Ounces," borne on the label,
of the said statement, it was
fatee each of the bottles cont
T.e article was alleged to be
o n. jnert substance, namely,
treopf were not stated plain
. iwt reof were the name a
psintt having fungicidal pr
.t|tances or ingredients so
th. labeL
..! Qs,.. epDtember 5, 1940, a plw
impose<|,


174.


J. S. v. Wilco Laboratories, Inc.
!179. Sample No. 86164-D.)


Plea


were found to contain less of the
label also failed to bear the required


torney for t
secretaryy of
Wilco Labor
terce on or a
Connecticut,
fungicide w


be misbranded
was false and m
labeled so as to
gained less than
misbranded furt
water, and the
ly and correctly,


nd percentage
operties, and t
present therein,


of guilty


isleading
deceive a
four fluid
her in tha
name and
, or at all


amount
he tota
stated


was entered


he Southern I
Agriculture, fi
atories, Inc., I
bout Septembe
of a quantity
within the mean

the statement.


)istri4
led it
qew '
r 29,
of P
ing o


"4 Fluid


d in that, by reason
Mislead purchasers,
unces of the article.
it consisted partially
te percentage amount
on the label; nor in


of each substance or in-
percentage of the inert
plainly and correctly on


and a


fine of $50 was


GOVEni B. Ha..,
Acting -Secretary of Agriculture.


ulteration and misbranding of Coal Tar Disinfeetant. U. S. v. The Apex
Chemical Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and eosts. (I. & P. No.
2185. Sample No. 318-E.)


A analysis of a sample of this product shl
oil 'and the label failed to bear the required
On June 24, 1940, the United States att
Carolina, acting upon a report by the Se
tript nmrt- n1 n infnrmnmtinn anAiint th


owed that it consisted in part of mineral


ingred
orney
9cretar
Ansy


lent statement.
for the Eastern
y of Agriculture,
Chuamipnl fn Tit


Disti
fileE
ip #


rict of North
d in the dis-
Anor N "


i
1
|





498 INSECTICIDE ACT tN. .,. F.

The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement,"Coal
Disinfectant," was false and misleading and in that, by reason of the said sta
ment, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser1
it did not consist of coal tar disinfectant but did consist of coal tar disinfectant
and mineral oil. The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that
consisted partially of inert substances, namely, water and mineral oil, ad the
name and the percentage amounts thereof were not stated on a label or onte
drum containing the article; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and perent g
amount of each and every substance or ingredient having fungicidal properties,
and the total percentage of the inert substances so present therein, stated plainly
and correctly on a label or on the drum.
On September 9, 1940, a plea of guilty was entered and the court imposed
fine of $100 and costs.
GROVnR B. UiT.,
Acting Secretary of Agrioultwre
1765. Misbranding of Thornton's Cactus Crystals. U. S. v. 21 peakaiges o
Thornton's Cactus Crystals. Default decree of condemnation and :-
struction. (I. & F. No. 2190. Sample No. 13,396-E.)
The sample packages were found to contain less than one pound each *
this product, the amount claimed on the label. The label was found, also
to contain unwarranted insecticidal claims when used against moths as d
On or about July 17, 1940, the United States attorney for the DistrM
Oregon, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed inte Nso
trict Court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 21 packages ofThc
ton's Cactus Crystals at Portland, Oreg., alleging that the article had been
shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 18, 1931, by the L M. Thoto
Manufacturing Company, from Kansas City, Mo., and charging that it was a lm :
branded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "
Thornton's Cactus Crystals ONE POUND NET. Moth Exterminator--l
Moths Cactus Crystals Moth Exterminator. Directions for Using
For best results place clothing or fabrics in a tight closet, trunk, box or
The container should be air tight if possible in order to prevent the escae
gas thrown off by slow vaporization which takes place when Cactus Cst
is exposed to the air. The use of gummed tape for sealing closets, trunks, etc.4
is recommended. Remove the lid from Cactus Crystal and place the cntaina
on the top shelf of the closet or sprinkle liberally among clothing and in o6e,
if packed in a trunk or box. General Uses Sprinkle liberally 1


nap and under rugs, on sofas, between and under cushions, in
and all storage places for clothing, furs or fabrics. The gas
vaporizing of Cactus Crystals will not only kill moths that
with it but will prevent infection while the gas is present. *
* When storing clothing seal a quantity of Thornton's


burea
form
come
*
Cactu


with the clothing in air tight bags, closets or trunks for absolute
against moths, (Displaying Circular) KILLS MOTHS," were false an
ing, and in that, by reason of the said statements, the article was
as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since each of the packages
less than 1 pound net, and since the article, when used as directed,
kill moths and would not exterminate moths.
On September 11, 1940, no claimant having appeared, a decree of con
and forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the product be


u drawers
ed -f
in eontat
* Control
*s Crystals
protectio ''
d mislead-
labele
contain
would

demnation
destroyed.


GfovuR B, Htz
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.





* I6t1777]


NOTICBS


JTJTJGMNT


499


eims that it would act as a sterilizer and that it contained the parts per
million and the percentage amounts of chlorine stated on the label, when used
as directed. The label also failed to bear the required ingredient statement.
On September 5, 1940, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of California, acting upon a report by the Secretqry of Agriculture, filed in
the district court an information against the Sentinel Chemical Company, Inc.,
Oakland, Calif., alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about March 11,
April 1, and November 17, 1939, from Oakland, Calif., into the State of Oregon,
ora quantity of Konisol, which was an adulterated and misbranded insecti-
cide and fungicide, a quantity qf Pine-O-Zone Disinfectant, which was a mis-
branded insecticide and fungicide, and a quantity of Technichlor, which was a


misbranded fu
The Konisol
fell below the
that it contain
on the label.
The Konisol
"Alcohol % *


ngicide, within the meaning of
was alleged to be adulterated,
professed standard and quality
ed less alcohol and more inert


the Insecticide Act of 1910.
since its strength and purity
under which it was sold, in
ingredients than were stated


alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements,
* Inert Ingredients 3% SENTINEL KONISOL


* As a disinfectant: dilute one tablespoonful in a quart of water, or
two or more ounces to a gallon of water. USE FREELY: for the emersion
of instruments and tools used in physicians and dentists offices, medical and
vetinary hospitals, beauty salons, barber shops, sick rooms, To
EecYI fly breeding: dilute twoa ounces or more to the gallon of
water. To exterminate fleas, lice, *: dilute one-half a cupful to
dLf water," borne on the label, were false and misleading and tended
to deceive and mislead purchasers, since the article contained less alcohol
anid more inert ingredients than were stated on the label; it would not act
as a disinfectant, it would not check the breeding of flies, and it would not
exterminate fleas and lice, when used as directed.
The Pin-O-Zone Disinfectant was misbranded in that the statements, "SENTI-
NEL PINE-O-ZONE Disinfectant AS A DISINFECTANT: dilute 2


tablespoonfuls
FREELY: for
dentists offices,
sick rooms, *
more to the
LICE *


in a quart of water, 3 or 4 ounces to a gallon of water. USE
the emersion of instruments and tools used in physicians and
medical and veterinary hospitals, beauty salons, barber shops,
To cheek fly breeding: dilute 3 to 4 o. or
gallon of water. TO EXTERMINATE FLEAS,
dilute one-half a cupful to a gallon of water," borne on the


label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead purchasers,
since the product would not act as a disinfectant, it would not check the
breeding of flies, and it would not exterminate fleas and lice, when used as
directed.
The Technichlor was misbranded in that the following statements "CLEANS-
ING AND STERILIZING Directions To Make One Gallon Chlorine
Solution. Parts Per Million; Per Cent; Ant Dry Technichlor; 50---0-1%
Teaspoons; 100-.01-2%; 200-.02-5%; 500--.5---13; 1000-.1-26," borne on
the label were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead purchas-
ers, since the article would not act as a ste"ilzerand the solutions of the article,
when prepared as directed on the label, would not contain the parts per million
or the percentage amounts of chlorine stated. The Technichlor was mis-
branded further, since it consisted partially of iert substances or ingredients
and the name and percentage amount of each siubstance or ingredient were
not stated plainly and correctly on the label; l*r in Hlieu thereof were the
name and percentage amount of each stne r ingredient of the article
having fungicidal properties, and the tota perenge of the inert substances





500


INSEOTICOEli ACT J., I. r


On June 27, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
New York, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed i*
district court an information against the Hammond Paint and Chemical Co.,
a corporation, Beacon, N. Y., alleging shipments in interstate commerce, on
or about January 8, May 9, and August 27, 1938, from Beacon, N. Y., into the
State of Florida, of two lots of Copper Solution and one lot of Supers
that were adulterated and misbranded fungicides within the meaning
Insecticide Act of 1910. -
The Copper Solution in each of the two shipments of that product was06
to have been adulterated in that its strength and purity fell below the pe
standard and quality under which it was sold, namely, "Active Ingrea
Metallic Copper 3.05%, Inert Material 96.95%."
The Copper Solution was alleged to be misbranded in that the stemetts
"Active Ingredients: Metallic Copper 3.05%, Inert Material 96.95%, beM
the label, were false and misleading, and in that the article was labeletFa 4
to deceive and mislead the purchaser", since it contained less than3.0q 3,0
of copper and more than 96.95% of inert material.
oft


The Super Copper was alleged to be
fell below the professed standard and
"Active Ingredients: Metallic Copper 1
The Super Copper was alleged to
"Active Ingredients: Metallic Copper
the label, were false and misleading,


adulterated since its strength
quality under which it was
5.00%; Inert Material 85%.'
be misbranded in that the
15.00%; Inert Material 85!
and in that it was labeled


th a
so

!st
%,"an
an<


so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the article,contained
15 percent of copper and more than 85 percent of inert material.
On September 25, 1940, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of
imposed.


GROVEs B.
Acting Secretary of A


a
S
or'


1768. Adulteration and mnisbranding of Dixie Pineen Disinfectant. U. S
H. Markstein, Sr. Plea of nolo contender. Fine, $50 and cost
No. 2125. Sample No. 62501-D.)


nd purity
1, nael
atements,
borne on
I branded
less

.$80 was



' r.ar.w
I


Samples of this product were found to contain a larger percentage of water
than that stated on the label. The label also was found to bear unwarranted
disinfectant claims.
On May 25, 1s39, the United States attorney for the Northern DfutrBtCJ
Alabama, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, file, 1:
district court an information against Daniel H. Markstein, Sr., Birmingham,
Ala., alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about December 16, 13S,
from Birmingham, Ala., into the State of Mississippi, of a quantity of a product
known as Dixie Pineen Disinfectant which was an adulterated and misbranded
fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be adulterated, in that its strength and purity
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, namely,
"Inert matter not over 10% water." .
The product was alleged to be inisbranded in that the statement
matter not over 10% water Directions: Add two ounces, tDixie
Pineen Disinfectant' to each gallon water. Mix thoroughly and sprinkle or
spray disinfectant where needed," borne on the label, were false and mtsleadig
and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser since the product contained
water in a proportion greater than 10 percent and the product would not be
an effective disinfectant, when applied as directed.
On October 4, 1940, a plea of nolo contender was entered and ane Afl
(innl pnqt waff imnnai -;d





1765-1777]


NOThItS


OF JUB ENT


501


an information
shipment in iutE
from Shawville,
of a product kn
insecticide and
Thle product ii
it was intendedc
vegetation when
The product i
that certain sta
Dusting all your
is a sure way to
Do ppt wait till
and melons, du
100% Gladiolus
mnite, etc., by tr
Shrubs, Vegetab
lar dusting of y
the most harmf
ifll comes from t
wet plants. Du


on top. Where
and follow with
appears. Dust
troubles will be
Fruits Against
plants regularly,
to keep them cl


Dust will


not b


use Devil Dust p
Safe to use on
and yellow circi
were false and
that the product
make gladiolus
would not contr
etc.; would not


against The Rigg Tool eo., epraton, Elyria, Ohio, alleging
statee commerce n or alopt rch 7,1988, and July 17, 1939,
Ohio, into the States of r lvania a Illinois, of quantities
own as "Devil Dut," whi was an adulergted and misbranded
fungicide within the me>gpg of tl Insecticide Act of 1910.
involved in each.lipment 1 for use on vegetatio2r i jd would be injurious to such
used as directed.
n each of the two shipwtls was gtlIleged to be misbranded in
tements bore ipon the r1 s t namely, "As Insect Repellent.
plants regularly, even thgb Io in epts are evident
keep them clen gnd inssi go0 growth and bloom all season.
pests are present. For yag tw~de plants, such as cucumbers
st very lightly. Geans Gladiolus and other Bulbs
and other bulbs are made absolutely free, from thrips, bulb
eatment with evil Dusk hile doripant," "Protects Flowers,
les and Fruits Aainst May Pest Regr-
our plants with Devil Dust will keep them free from many of
ul fuwgous dis~sges ** Apply Devil Dust as
he package, with a RidgW Hanj Dust Gun. Do not apply to
st dry plants thoroughly but lightly on under side as well as


A]
P
(
Ic:
IH


Io0


* fungus are thick, apply first dusting more heavily
regular light dustings during the growing season before bloom
rery ten days or two: wpeks apd most fungamp
avoided. Protects Flowers, Shrubs, Vegetables and
lany Fungous Pests. Dusting all your
wven though no diseases are evident iS a sure way
an and insure good growth and bloom all season." "Devil
*n dry Plants do not apply to wet plants Safe to
sitively will not burn dry plants., Do not apply to wet plants.
*' "- '**" *<*i1n


veg
ulari
mis
, w
an
ol
ac


control all greenhot
all damping-off, etc


tables.
and a
leading
hen used
i other b
all pests,
t as an
ise pests:
.; would


* *," and certain statements borne on a blue
green anid white circular shipped with the article,
and tended to deceive and mislead purchasers, in
as directed, would not repel all insects; would not
ulbs absolutely free from thrips, bulb mite, 0te;
kill all insects by contact, kill all insect enemies,
effective futmigator for white fly, etc; would not
; would not eheek all fungi, all rusts, all mildews,
not keep flowersI shrubs, vegetables, and fruits


free from the more importa nt fungois diseases and most fungous troubles would
not be avoided; would not serve as a powerful weapon against fungous diseases
that every grower of flowers or vegetables is engaged in fighting, would not
check all fungous diseases such asrust, Anildew, or daminping-of ete; regular
applications would not promptly clean up infetations of all the diseases in-
volved in the recommendations, und would kp plants hbelthy and vigorous,
allowing them to grow more ltniriantlit wo not control all pests, would
not halt the progress of all fiingous diseases, would not be highly efficient
against fungous diseases, and 4oes not iossess teatively good dusting prop-
erties; would not assure clean gadiolus itt a it would not be a sure and
effective method of preventing all pests and wild not free gladioli of all
pests; it would injure certain plants while they are dry, when used as directed,
it would not be safe to use the product qn al plats or on vegetables; its
toxic effect while in the package was not ntd cul and Xn the 3ir it would be
more harmful than any other dust breathfd nate tQ lungs.
flt k..*.A A4- nn l- nS 41. 1n Aak in*^A ^t ^><4M'*ln.'~~f r'vrnelS. t* ,'n n AaAf Sn~ .4~l a.~w S4vt a< 54.


1





502


S
INSIWTIODR


ACT


1770. Adulteration and misbranding of Powdered Derris Root. U. S. &.
Peniek & Co., a corporation. Verdict of Guilty. Fine, $200. .
No. 1892. Sample No. 48819-B.)
Samples of this product were found to contain a smaller percentage of rteofbe
than that stated on the label.
On May 6, 1936, the United States attorney for the District of New ,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the disttit iart
an information against S. B. Penick & Co., a Delaware corporation, W N _,
N. J., alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about November S
from Weehawken, N. J., into the State of South Carolina, of a quantity of
powdered derris root that was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide within
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and putrty e
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sol41 tit,
"5% rotenone."
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statente, %
rotenone," borne on the label, was false and misleading and tended to e e
and mislead the purchaser, since the product contained rotenone in a propbl
much lower than 5 percent.
On October 25, 1940, the case having come on for trial before a juya
verdict of guilty was entered and the court imposed a fine of $200.
GROVEn B. Thr
Acting Secretary of Agroitte
1771. Misbranding of Kno-Mold. U. S. v. Johnston Chemical Manufaetul Co
a corporation. Plea of nolo contender. Fine, $100. (I. & R. No. 2186.
Sample No. 96907-D.)
The label and two circulars shipped therewith bore unwarranted claimpt
the product would control blue mold of tobacco, when used as directed, at
it possessed the food and stimulant values set forth therein, that it would re-
vive sick tobacco plants more quickly than anything known, and that it wold
not cause damage to plants at any strength.
On September 4, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District f
North Carolina, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fli a
the district court an information against the Johnston Chemical Manufat g
Co., a North Carolina corporation, Smithfield, N. C., alleging shipment in int-
state commerce, on or about February 3, 1940, from Smitlhfield, N. 0., Int te
State of Georgia, of a quantity of a product known as "Kno-Mold," which was
a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of IL


'Te product was alegen to be misnranaea
the can label, "Kno-Mold a scientific and tested
control of blue mold on tobacco beds *
circular entitled "Instructions For the Use 4
circular entitled "Don't Let Blue Mold Ruin


in that the statement oM
treatment for the prevent
" and the statement oan a
)f 'Kno-Mold'," and n a
Your Plants," were false


misleading and tended to deceive and mislead purchasers,
and circulars represented that the product would prevent
mold on tobacco when used as directed, that it possessed th
plant values set forth in the labeling, that it would revive
quickly than anything known, and that it would not cause


at any strength
claimed.
On October 28
$100 was impose


, whereas the


product


would


not accomplish


in that the]
and control
e food and t
sick pai
damage to p1


1940, a plea of nolo contender was entered and a

tGeaOE BO. gflr.
ActSg Becretary of Agrciure.





1763-177?]


NOTICS


503


a product known as "Kno-Mo!d,' at Moultriet Ga., alleging that thle article
had been shipped in interstate commerce n o~ about February 3, 1940, by the
Johnston Chemical Manufacturing Compan, from Smithfield, N. C., and charg-
ing that it was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide
Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements borne on the
can label, "Kno-Mold a scientific and tested treatment for the prevention and
control of blue mold on tobacco beds* *," and the statements on a
small circular entitled "Instructions For the Use of 'Kno-Mold'," and in a large
circular entitled "Don't Let Blue Mold Ruin Your Plants," were false and
misleading and tended to deceive and mislead purchasers, in that the label and
circulars represented that the product wTild prevent and control blue mold
on tobacco when used as directed, that it possessed the food and stimulant
values set forth in the labeling, that it would revive sick plants more quickly
than anything known, and that it would not cause damage to plants at any
strength, whereas the product would not acomplish the results so claimed.
On November 18, 1940, a claim and answer having been filed by the Johnston
Chemical Manufacturing Company and the claim having failed for lack of
prosecution, a default decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered and
it was ordered that the product be destroyed
GCnoVV 'B. HTrr.-


Acting Secretary of Agriiture.


1773. Adulteration and misbranding of Weston's Louse Powder. IT. S. v. T'Ie
Weston Manufacturing and Supply Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100.
4il & No. 2187. Sample No. 7596G-D.)
Samples of this product were found to contain a smaller percentage of active
ingredients and a larger percentage of inert ingredients than was stated on the


label, and the
On July 31,
acting upon a
an information
Colo., alleging
from Denver,


Louse Powder," wh
the meaning of the
The product was
below the professe
"Active Ingredients
The product was
in a proportion les
than 90.03%. The
consisted partially
thereof were not st
were the name and
product having ins
substances or ingre
On November 19,
imposed.


label did not bear the ingredient statement required by law.
1940, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado,
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
against The Weston Manufacturing and Supply Co., Inc., Denver,
shipment in interstate commerce on or about November 8, 1939,
Colo., into the State of Ohio, of a product known as "Weston's


Lich was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide within
Insecticide Act of 1910,
alleged to be adulterated min that its strength or purity fell
d standard or quality unmer which it was sold, namely,
9.97% Inert Ingredients 90.03%."
alleged to be misbranded, since it contained active ingredients
s than 9.97% and inert ingredients in a proportion greater
product was alleged to be aisbranded further, in that it


of inert substances and the name and percentage a:
ated plainly and correctly on the label; nor in lieu t
I percentage amount of each substance or ingredient I
ecticidal propecties, and the total percentage of the
dients, stated plainly and correctly on the label.
1940, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $10


mount
hereof
of the
inert
0 was


Goro B. HIL
Aeg Secretary of Agrictiture.
1774. Misbranding of Disinfecting Spray S;t 119 Drums of Diinfaecting
Spray. Consent decree of contdeIniaonr $nd sale. (L & f No, 1895.
B.Sample No. 61070-B.) x x *
This product was falsely labeled as tdis etin sorav. The label also






504


*INSECTICO DE


ACT


r~. 1.,r!r.


in that it consisted partially of an inert substance, namely, water, and tb e
and perecentage amount thereof were not stated plainly and correctly
label; nor in lieu thereof were the name and the percentage amount
aa
substance or ingredient having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and h
percentage of the inert substance contained therein, stated plainly and e
on the label.
On November 20, 1940, the claimant having admitted the truth of the allega-
tions and having agreed to the entry of a decree, a decree of condemintion
was entered, ordering that the product be sold by the claimant to a p
that met the approval of the Investigator In Charge of the Alcohol Ta IJ t,
Newark, N. J., and that the proceeds of such sale first be applied to all b
incurred by the Government and that the remainder be divided equally
the Government and B. L. Muller, trading as the universal Paint and V
Co. The decree provided further that in the event the sale was not eonms -
mated within 30 days, the product should be disposed of according to
and the interest of the claimant should be terminated.


GBOVER
Acting Secretary of


B.
AgridiiMvteit


1775. Misbranding of Pine Disinfectant. U. S. v. The Royal Manufacturing
a corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. No. 2170. Sample
82954--D.)
It was falsely stated on the label that this product was many times strong
than carbolic acid, [inferentially against all microorganisms] and tB
failed to bear the required ingredient statement required by law.
On April 16, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern PItrici
Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed I
district court an information against the Royal Manufacturing Co., a w
tion, Augusta, Ga., alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about A
8, 1939, from Augusta, Ga., into the State of South Carolina, of a q
of Pine Disinfectant, which was a misbranded fungicide within the
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, *1
grade disinfectant that is many times stronger than carbolic acid," bord<
the label, was false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead
purchaser, since the product was not many times stronger than earbolie
against all microorganisms. The product was alleged to be misbriif ded
their in that it did consist partially of an inert substance or ingredient ipf
water, and the name and the percentage amount thereof were nt
plainly and correctly on the label; nor in lieu thereof were the ngw
percentage amount of each and every substance or ingredient of t
having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and the total percentage


Co.,
Na.


ger



a
-U


inert substances or ingredients so present therein, stated plainly and
on the label.
On November 30, 1940, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of
imposed.
GnOVnEB fl
Acting secretary of A grictf)

1776. Misbranding of Superl Moth Block, adulteration and misbranding f Solt
Pine Oil, and adulteration and misbranding of Coal Tar Disnfeota
U. S. v. Easterday Supply Company, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $
(I. & F. No. 2195. Sample Nos. 136812--E, 13613-E, and 13614-E.)


-00
00o


The label for the Superi Moth
net wonid control clothes moths


Block bore unwarranted claims that the prod
when used as directed. The Soluble Pin. Ofl


:





1tPA~1777]


NOTICEO


OF JUDGMENT


505


Tar Disinfectant," which were adulterated aad misbranded fungicides, all
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The Superl Moth Block was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,
"Superl Moth Block For use it moth control, in closely
confined spaces. Directions Renaiwe lid from 'Superl Moth Block' and
place inside drawer or trunk, etc. The vapor from Superl Moth Block is
effective only when allowfI to aceumulat Ea closely confined area," borne on
the label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead pur-
chasers, since the product would not control moths, i. e., clothes moths, in all


closely confined spaces.
The Soluble Pine Oil was alleged to be Julterated in that its
purity fell below the profssed standard and quality under which
- 1- fl 4- 4-- -

strength and
it was sold,


uawmevy, vvater, Lot euyr 10 7 |
The Soluble Pine Oil was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "A
most Powerful Germicide and Antiseptic; i Will Quickly Destroy Foul
Odor or Disease Germsw. Water, pot over 10%," borne on the label,
were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislega purchasers, since
it was not a most powerful germicide, waIld not destroy all foul odors or all
disease germs, and it did contain more than 10 percent of water.
The Coal Tar Disinfectant was alleged 4 be adulterated in that it did not
consist completely of cpal tar disinfec&nt, but another substance, namely
0r ~antheoltr dsubsetance
mineral oil, had been substituted in part Tr the coal tar disinfectant.
The Coal Tar Disinfectant was alleged W be misbrapded since the statement,
"Coal Tar Disinfectant," borne on the abel, was false and misleading and
tended to deceive and' mislead liurchasei, since the product did not consist
completely of coal tar disinfectant, but did consist of coal tar disinfectant and
mineral oil. This product was alleged to be misbranded further In that it
consisted partially of inert substances, namely, water and mineral oil, and the
name and 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
the substance or ingredient of the product having fungicidal properties, and the
total percentage of the inert substances or ingredients, stated plainly and correctly
upon the label.
On December 5, 1940, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $60 was
imposed.
GiiOVE B. HmL
Acting secretary of Agriculture.
iTYT. Adnlteration and misbranding of Pine Oil Emulsion. U. S. v. Lloyd M.
ts and Charles DI. Folse, co-partners, trading as the Curts-Folse Labo-
ratories. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2192. Sample
No. 4245-E.)
Samples of this product were found to contain more than 10 percent of water,
the quantity stated on the label. The label also bore inferences that the product
would kill all bacteria when used as directed.
On November 23, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
an information against Lloyd M. Courts and Charles D. Folse co-partners, trading
at Kansas City, Kans., under the name of. Curts-Folse Laboratories, alleging
shipment in interstate commerce, on or about December 12, 1939, from Kansas
City. Kans., into the State of Wisconsin, of a quantity of "Pine Oil Emulsion,"
which was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the
IfSecticide Act of 1910


The product
rTelM below the
il -a J --4.^ a a


was
profe


alleged to be adulterated
ssed standard and quality
n- jl.a dt'trwal ^n *I1


.in at its strength and purity
under which it was sold, namely,
















INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 1763-1777


N.
Coal Tar Disinfectant:
Apex Chemical Co., Inc- .
Easterday Supply Co., Inc..--
Copper Solutions
Hammond Paint and Chemical
Co -- --


Devil

Disinf

Dixie


Dust:
The idge Tool Co. -----
ecting Spray:
United Refining Corporationr
Pineen Disinfectant:
Markstein, Daniel H., Sr-.


-
- -


Kno-Mold:
Johnston Chemical Manufactur-
Ing Co--------- --- -
Johnston Chemical Manufactur-
ing Co ....-.. -_- .... --
Konisol:
Sentinel Chemical Co., Inc...
Pine Disinfectant:
Royal Manufacturing Co- -
Wilco Laboratories, Ine--c_


J. No.
1764
1776

1767

1769

1774

1768

1771
1772

1766

1775
1763


Pine Oil Emulsion:
Curts-Folse Laboratories_.._-
Curts, Lloyd M., and Folse,
Charles D--.---.... --._
Pine-O-Zone Disinfectant:
Sentinel Chemical Co., Inc_.
Powdered Derris Root:
Penick, S. B., & Co_----__
Soluble Pine Oil:
Yesterday Supply Co., Inez--
Super Copper:
Hammond Paint and Chemical
Co -------- ----
Superl Moth Block:
Easterday Supply Co., Ine__
Technichlor:
Sentinel Chemical Co., Inc_.
Thornton's Cactus Cystals:
Thornton, L. M., Manufacturing
Co -- ^W ------Wm-n---> ---- flm m -m^ *---1i- >--inll
Weston's Louse Powder:
Weston Manufacturing and Sup-
ply Co., nc- --____- -:_--


N. IJ. o.


1*166

1170
1778
0

~L787


1778

zip
0
1778


0
0


: :' **' I'0





i~


I

















1%,












s~s~u