N. J., 1. F. 177S-1789
Issued August 1941
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]
((Approved by the Ass
stant Secretary of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C., April 21,
The Tabel for thi
The product contain
on the label, which
would sterilize drix
On September 17
and misbranding of M-T-C (Mercuro-Tri-Carbolate) Antisep-
U. S. v. Ross O. Johnson and Ralph WV. Firke, co-partners,
the Concentrate Products Company. Plea of guilty. Total
Each defendant sentenced to 3 months in jail, which sen-
e suspended and the defendants placed on probation for 2
& F. No. 1920, sample No. 41425-B.)
s product failed to bear the required ingredient statement.
ned mercury bichloride in a proportion less than that stated
h also bore an unwarranted statement that the product
the United States attorney for
Of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary
district court an information against Ross O. Jf
eI-partners, trading as the Concentrate Products 4
dIlleging shipment in interstate commerce, on or
Champaign, Ill., into the State of Minnesota, of a
Tri-Oarbolate) Antiseptic Tablets, which were an
fingicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
*The product was alleged to be adulterated in the
6W the professed standard and quality under
Tadblete Consist of Bichloride Mercury
S .he product was alleged to be misbranded in
* Consist of Bichloride Mercury 16% *
r of Agri
culture, filed in the
nd Ralph W. Firke,
, at Champaign, Ill.,
tober 25, 1935, from
of M-T-C (Mercuro-
ted and misbranded
strength and purity fell
it was sold, namely,
," borne on th
4 the statements, "Mercuro-Tri-Carbolate dissolved in drinking wat
oughly sterilizes it Water sterilized with Mercuro-Tri-C
*. Give water sterilized with Mercuro-Tri-Carbolate Gi
. tilized with Mercuro-Tri-Carbolate," borne on the circular enclosed and
W?(h the product, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and
purchasers, since the product consisted of mercury bichloride in a proper
than 16 percent, and the product would not sterilize drinking water.
alleged to be misbranded further, in that it consisted partially of inert su
or ingredients, namely, substances other than mercury bichloride. and tl
and perceentage amount of each inert substance were not stated plainly
itfy on: the label; nor in lieu thereof were the name and the percentage
of each substance or ingredient thereof having fungicidal properties,
tftai percentage of the inert substances present therein, stated plai
correctly on the label.
On March 27 and July 29. 1940, the respective defendants entered pleas
and Were each sentenced to serve 3 months in jail and to pay a fine of $2
The jail sentences were afterwards suspended and the dgfetdhnts wer
508 INSECTICIDE ACT [(. J. E&
district court an information against the Midway Chemical Co., a corpotation S
Chicago Ill., alleging shipments in interstate commerce, on or about Mfy 1
Chca9381. alegn s9 pent Cin in1rsat therct es onfrabu
1938, and May 24, 1939, from Chicago, Ill., into the States of Minnesota and
Ohio, of quantities of "Ant Ded," which was a misbranded insecticide wiithi
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. :
The product in both shipments was alleged to be misbranded, in that thesit
ments, "Ant Ded For Use Indoors As Well As Outdoors Kills Ants W
Used as Directed Directions Open entrance for ants by pushing
scored spots in top. Be sure that ali of the entrances are open so tIat the
ants will be able to go in either side they prefer, depending upon whether they
are Grease Eating Ants or Sweet Eating Ants. Then place the can flat on
lawn or wherever you care to kill the ants, with the open entrances towqr,
the bottom. For best results, do not place Ant Ded Poison more than
apart in the lawn This can contains two different kinds e it
Poison-one for Sweet Eating Ants, the other, for Grease Eating Ants.
Ant Poisons are complete---nothing is to be added to the can. The extra large
air space is for utility," borne on the labels, were false and misleading and
tended to deceive and mislead purchasers, since the product would not act as an
effective insecticide against ants when used as directed.
On August 5, 1940, a plea of nol contendere having been entered, a i o
$105 was imposed.
Gnovn .B li tr,
Assistvznt Seoretary of Agriculture.
1780. Misbranding of Exserco Insecticide Perfumed Fly Spray. U.I S.
L. Amahel, trading as the Exsereo Products Co. Plea of nolo co
Fine, $100 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2189. Sample No. 81148-D.)
Sample packages of this product showed that each contained less
pint thereof, the quantity stated upon the label.
The label failed to bear the statement that repeated applications were
for killing of flies, and for the control of moths and silverfish, and th
of other insects indicated by the abbreviation "etc."
On September 5, 1940, the United States attorney for the Western D
Pa., under the
New York, of
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
an information against Milton L. Amshel, trading at Pittsburgh,
name of the Exserco Products Co., alleging shipment in interstate
or about August 4, 1939, from Pittsburgh, Pa., into the State of
a quantity of Exserco Insecticide
insecticide within the meaning o0
T~e product was alleged to be misbranded
Insecticide Perfumed Fly Spray Kills *
Spray room with Exserco Insecticide, spraying
doors and windows closed for 10 minutes. Moth
Perfumed Fly Spray, which
the Insecticide Act .f 19M
in that the statements, "E
Piies Flies *
upwards in all directions.
the garment, then spray Exserco Insecticide everywhere under seams, collars,
etc. This insecticide will kill all larvae and eggs with which it comes
in thorough contact. Roaches, Etc. *," "1 Piut,"
borne on the label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead
purchasers, since the product when used as directed would not kill flies, would
not control moths and silverfish without repeated applications, nor would it
control all other insects included in the abbreviation "etc.," and the packages
contained less than one pint of the product.
On November 20, 1940, a plea of nolo cQntendere was entered, and on February
6, 1941, a fine of $100 and costs was imposed.
name and sty
from Cedar R
labeled as "A
of the Insectic
and purity fel
an information against Verney H. Heumes, trading under the
le of the German Laboratories at Oedar Rapids, Iowa, alleging two
interstate commerce on or abot August 18 and November 1, 1939,
apids, Iowa, into the State Illinois, of quantities of a product
Remedy Erroneously Sometines Called Dry Dip," which was
d and misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning
ide Act of 1910.
in both shipments was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength
l1 below the professed standard and quality under which it was
"This product antains 50% inert matter 50% total active
in both shipment
was alleged to be misbranded in that the fol-
lowing statements, borne on the label, "This Product Contains-50% Inert Matter
50% Total Active Ingredient," "This is used for combating FLU
GERMS in live stock. sprinkle plenty of this remedy in the hogs
bedding A KILLER AND REPELLENT FOR SOME THINGS, USED
FOR COMBATTING FLU GERMS. FOR HORSES AND CATTLE *
Disinfect the stables, pens or stalls-well after each cleaning *," *
"DRY DIP A KILLER AND REPELLENT FOR SOME THINGS
FOR POULTRY Clean the poultry house or coops and sprinkle floors
ff iTh FlU Remedy as well as roosts before putting in fresh bedding.
Make a dust bath for the hens to roll in by using 10 parts wood ashes to one part
Flu Remedy. CAUTION If dtsting the pulttry direct, dilute the Flu Remedy
with 10 parts fine air slack lime or wood ashes to one part Flu Remedy," *
"FOR GARDEN OR PLANT BUGS. Spinkle Flu TRemedy on the young vine
or plant while the dew is on, so that the powder will stick to the leaves and stem,"
were false and misleading, and tended to eeive and mislead purchasers, siner
the product contained inert matter in ra portion greater than 50 percent,
and contained total active ingredient in a projrtion less than 50 percent; it was
not a disinfectant, it would not disinfect tables, pens, or stalls, it was not a
MQ aand repellent of germs, nor would it combat flu germs when used as
directed; it would not Abe effective against insects that attack poultry; and it
would not control all garden and plant bugs when used as directed.
'The product in both shipments was alleged to be rmisbranded further in that
it consisted partially of inert substances or ingredients 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 each and every
substance or ingredient having insecticidal or fungicidal properties, and the
total percentage of the inert substances or ingredients so present therein, stated
plainly and correctly on the label.
On December 2, 1940, a plea of guity wf entered and a flue of $25 akn costs
was assessed to cover the six counts und& th Inseeticeide Act of 1910 and the
two counts under the Food, Drug, and snatoet Act, with which the ease was
.Gnovnit B. lz..,
1782. Misbranding of Nik-Teen Cartridge. U. S. v. Meyer Odence. trading as the
Nik-Teen Tobacco Products Co. Plea of nolo contender. Fine S10.
(I. & F. No. 2193. Sample No. 2602-E.)
label for this product failed to
product contained an insufficient an
and the label bore unwarranted
moths, bugs, lice, ants, worms, and
used according to the directions.
September 18, 1940, the United St:
bear the required ingredient statement.
nount of nicotine to be effective against
claims that the product would contxoL
all other pests in lawns and golf greens,
fates attorney for the District of Massa-
[N .J, I.
of hose. Turn on water and spray is ready," borne on the label, .wyre fe
and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead purchasers, since the rduiat
did not contain nicotine in an amount sufficient to be effective against a,
and it would not control aphis, moths, bugs, lice, ants, worms, and al ohehr
pests in lawns and golf greens when used as directed. The product was ed
to be misbranded further, in that it consisted partially of inert substare or
ingredients and the name and the percentage amount thereof were not tate
plainly and correctly, or at all, on the label; nor in lieu thereof were th kne
and percentage amount of each and every substance or ingredient of tl aid
article having insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of the ineta
stances or ingredients present therein, stated plainly and correctly on th
'On December 17, 1940, a plea of nolo contender was entered and a fine .. 1o;
rGBOVn- B] HIt
Assista" t Secretary of Agri*W&
1783. Adulteration and misbranding of powdered derris root. U. S. v. 1 rai
of powdered derris root. Default decree of condemnation, forteitt
and destruction. (I. & F. No. 1868, Sample No. 48819-B.)
Analysis of a sample from this shipment showed that the product contained
much less rotenone than that stated on the label.
On January 10, 1936, the United States attorney for the Eastern Thst&t
of South Carolina, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,, efld i
the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 1 barrel o6
powdered derris root at Charleston, S. C., alleging that the article had bee
shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 12, 1935, by S. B. Penick
& Co., from Weehawken, N. J., and charging that it was an adulterated and nsw
branded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fe
below the professed standard and quality under which it was gold, namely, 5%
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement,
Rotenone," borne on the label, was false and misleading and tended to de
and mislead purchasers, since the product contained a much smaller propooa
-? Yafanant fhnn othhat sfatell t ,n t-ha lhal
JL 'SLCIdJVJL*C tI^UaAi~ ^LAAL tOt L'K-^^J^l. 'A-1A.*'/ AttAS/-A
On December 20, 1940, no claimant having appeared, a
and forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the
decree of condemnanti
product be destroyed
Gsovsa B. Hon
etary of Agricnwtet
1784. Misbranding of "0-P-C," "Universal Lavenderized Naphthtatleni. 0S
"Parodien Clora," and "Universal Cedarized Naphthalene Cakes." lt
v. Hlyman Ross and Alexander Mintz, co-partners trading as the
Products Company. Plea of not guilty, Jury trial. Total flae, 0EW
(I. & F. No. 1787, Sample Nos. 68380-A, 68381-A, 68382-A, 69807-A.J.
The label for the product. "C-P-C." bore unwarranted disinfectant elae.
The label for the product, "Universal Lavenderized Naphthalene Cakes," hoe
unwarranted insecticidal claims for the product against moths. The label fta
the product, "Parodien Clora" bore unwarranted insecticidal claims gat
moths and unwarranted claims that the product would purify the air in the bhrme.
The label for the product. "Universal Cedarized Naphthalene Cakes," aiso vote
unwarranted claims that the product would be effective against moths.
On January 29, 1936, the United Statas attorney for the Southern Disttit
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed iflat
district court an information against Hyman Ross and Alexander Mintza trina.
-. .. tw- ... ... -. .T _. ..ti -.l .1 tt.. n .. -*._ IJ- ^ ^ I.-I-
of water," borne on the label, wewialse and tisleading and tended to
e and mislead the purchaser, since the article when used as directed would
not disinfect g
kills moths an
that the sta
d moth larv
cuspidors, watew elsets, urinals, and sick rooms.
Lavenderized Naphtbhalene Cakes, was alleged to be
tements, "Unive Maenderiued Naphthalene Cales
ae. Protect y clothing, wfolens, carpets, and up-
moths A scientie moth destroyer of exceptional
Remwe wrapper. Use in Olosets, Chests, Drawers,
etc. Place Directly in Furs, Pinos, Garment Bags, or Clothes Pockets," borne
on the label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislea4 the
purchaser, since the product when used as directed would not act as an eeetive
insecticide against moths under all conditions.
The product, Parodien Clora, was alleged to be misbranded in that the state-
ments, "Parodien CLORA Air Sweetner and Moth Repellant. Purifies The Aix
in Your Home. Hang it up in Bathroom, Bedroom, Living Room, or G1otlh
Closet," borne on the label; :were false andr hisleading and tended to deceive and
mislead the purchaser, since the product when used as directed would not
purify the air in the home, would not act as a moth repellant, and would not
act as an effective insecticide against moths under all conditions.
The product, Universal Cedarized Naphthalene Cakes, was alleged to be mis-
branded in that the statements, "UNIVERSL CEDARIZED NAPHTEALENE
CAKES Kills Moths and Moth Larvae PttI yotir Clothlifg, Woolens, Carpets
and Upholstery from Destructive Moth& A SCENTIFIC MOTH
DESTROYER OF EXCEPTIONAL LENGTH. DIRECTIONS Remove
Wrapper. Use in Closets, Chests, Draweif e. Pace Directly i Furs, Piai"os,
Garment Bags, or Clothes Packetsr bori on the label, were false and misgead-
ing and tended to deceive and mislead ibe purchaser, since the product wben
used as directed would not act aa an etctpuve insecticide against moths under
The defendants entered pleas of tot gti. On December 23, 1940, a trial
before a jury was had, and the court found the defendants guilty, Whereupon a
ne-of $100 was imposed against each of the two detfendants.
GKOVn B H ,fff ,,
Assistant Secretary of Agrioltwue.
1785. Adulteration and misbranding of Vitality Calelum Arsenate Dust and mis-
branding of Vita-Ro Ompulete REtnnone Dust 100. US. v. Thre has H.
Lilly Co., a corporation. Plea gantilty. Fine, $150 and costs. (I. & F.
S No. 2197. Sample Nos. 13344-E, 1345--E.)
Samples of the Vitality Calcium Arseate Dust were found upon analysis to
contain less arsenic and more inert aggedierats than were stated on its label.
The article was found also to contain cealiwn arsenate as its active ingredient,
instead of arsenic as stated on the iube The label also bore unwarranted
insecticidal claims and failed to bear a apment ot the percentage amount of
arsenic in water-soluble form. 'TieiorVita-Ro Complete Rotsone Dust
100 bore unwarranted insecticidal c*ainpit also failed to bear the required
. On December 28, 1940, the United Stats attorney for the Westei District
of Washington, acting upon a report b e Secretary of Agricultun e, fled n
the district court an information again the Chas. H. Lilly Go., a. Dlaware
corporation, Seattle, Wash., alleging shipment in interstate com rce, on or
about March 18, 1940, from Seattle, Wa4 into the State of Oregon, of quan-
tities of "Vitality Calcium Arsenate Dut? which was an adulterated and mis-
branded insecticide, and "Vita-Ro Rotenone Dust 100" which was a amsbranded
......... .ins ecticide within the m
m Np*Y! .-_ 1 ^___ ...-.
e Tuasecticide Act of 1910.
-_1- -- _- -12 j^ -_ -*__ ---- A-.-- .2 i -JI ( j_.
when used as directed. The article was alleged to be misbranded er Mn
that it contained arsenic, and the amount of arsenic in water-solul4 rm,
expressed as percentum of metallic arsenic, was not stated on the labeL,
The Vita-Ro Complete Rotenone Dust 100 was, alleged to be misbra4n
that the statement, "The best way to kill plant pests," borne on the lab4was
false and misleading and tended to deceive #and mislead purchasers, sl the
article would not kill all plant pests when used as directed. This prodBt was
alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially of inert sub4ses,
and the name and the percentage amount thereof were not stated plainly nI
correctly on the label; nor in lieu thereof were the name and the per tage
amount of each substance or ingredient of the article having insecticidal prop-
erties, and the total percentage of the inert substances so present therein, tated
plainly and correctly on the label.
On January 13, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $150 and costs
Assistant Secretary of
1786. Misbranding of Bug-Lo. U. S. v. Irene H. Richter, trading as the BUis-
Products Co. Plea of nolo contender. Fine, $10 and costs, (L-& .
No. 2194. Sample No. 89029-D.)
This product consisted of active ingredients in a proportion less than 1 gpet-
cent as claimed on the label. The label also bore unwarranted claims thtTie
product would control ants, roaches, water bhugs, fleas, spiders, and silverbugs Whp
used as directed.
On October 31, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the d cet
court an information against Irene H. Richt r, trading at St. Louis, Mo., u
the name of the Bug-Lo Products Co., alleging slipments in interstate commrc
on or about August 14 and September 20, 1939, from St Louis, Mo., into the t
of Illinois, of quantities of Bug-Lo, which was a misbranded insecticide with
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Bug-Lo For
Ants, Roaches, Waterbugs For Fleas, Spiders, Silverbugs Put Small Slice Potatp
here, Fresh Daily. Remove Cellophane Windows With Pointed Wkife
Don't Remove Powder. Bug-Lo Dispenser Directions: Cut around both grooves
with pointed knife and remove cellophane windows td completely uncover powder.
Do not remove powder or center card board. Place small piece of potato on center.
Positively not poisonous to animals. Place under Ice box, sink, stove, in pty
or along whlls. Insects crawl thru powder and carry it to their nests wh It
kills them, together with all the rest. Bug-Lo is good for several weeks, *n
can be moved from one place to another. You don't sweep up powder but '
do sweep up dead insects. Active Ingredients 100%, bornn on S
label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead puttdt,
since it would not control ants, roaches, waterbugs, fleas, spiders, and silverbugs
when used as directed, nor did it contain active ingredients in the propottki of
On February 3, 1941, a plea of nolo contendere Was entered and a fine
and costs was imposed.
GnO-vR B. BHIL,
Assistanti Secretary of Agricultu
I ''Qf M~l~..A..rofWetann Vnn~l Wlanfa~nn..fl. S .. W*Ise Sna
* The produ
erful pine oi
was false an
it would not
alleged to be
borne on the
ct was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, 'This poWz
Il disinfectant is excellent for tse in hospitals," borne on the label,
d misleading and tended to d6iCWe and mislead the purchaser, sine
be an excellent disinfectant fo Use mi hospitals. The product waS
misbranded further in that the atemedts, "disinfectant and cleaned
add a smAll amount of Pine-O DiBinfeetantto the cleaning water,'
label, were false and misleadig and tended to deceive and misead
'r, since it would not act as an effective disinfectant when used as
U.A. ^-t LtA.
The product was alleged t
of an inert substance, name
thereof were not stated pia
we're the name and the perc
dient of the article having
the inert substance present t
On February 14, 1941, a
1788. Misbranding of MI-Sec
Charles .R. Simons,
No. 2198. Sample No.
o be misbranded further in that it consisted partially
ly, water, and the name and the percentage amount
inly and correctly on the label; nor in lieu thereof
entage amount of beach and every substance or tngre-
fungicidal properties, and the total percentage of
herein, stated "ainly and correctly on the latel.
plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $100 was
ret Brand Ant Killer. U. S.
co-partners, trading under
Pleas of nolo contender.
v. Sidney G. Simons and
the name of The Carn
Total fine, $50. (I. & F.
The label for this product bore unwarrantd claims that the product when used
as directed would control sweet-eating ant Argentine ants, and other ants; that
it would eliminate entire colonies of ants a would rid the house and garden qf
h *** ^ % '* T
court an inform
r 11, 1940, tl
upon a repo
the name c
ent in inter
into the Sta
United State, attorney for the Middle District of
by the Secretary of Agric"ture, filed in te dtrad
idney0 G. Simons and Charles B. Simons co-partner,
The Carr Chemical Company, at Columbus, Ga,
te commerce on or about August 28, 1939, from
of Florida, of a quantity of "Mi-Secret Branqd Ant
Killer," which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the nsecticide
Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements ei-Secret
Brand Ant Killer For Control of Sweet-EatiagAnts Direetions .Cut e
2-inch strips of Mi-Secret handy applicator nlluded in the package. Thoroughly
soak applicators, with Mi-Secret Ant Kille and place in runways of ants. Keep
applicators wet with Mi-Secret until all anp are gone. Mi-Secret will be carried
to the nest and continued use will often iwpei out whole colonies," borne on the
label, were false andmwisleading and tendpd teq deceive and mislead purchasers,
since the product would not control sweet-eting ants when used as directed. The
product was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements, "Mi-Secret
Brand Ant Killer For Control of Sweet Ea nts with sandy Applicatpr eady
for Use Mi-Secret Aut Killer Applicator. Its easy to use Mi-
Secret. A handy applicator is included e package. o tfuss no mess, no
bother-when you use Mi-Secret to kill a in your home *t iSeret
Ant Killer Guarantee When used Aecording to directions, Mi-Secret Ant Killer is
guaranteed to kill common household ants known as sweet-eating ants, ox your
money will be refunded on return of cartof and bottle to our home oMce DIMi
tions Cut off 2-ipch strips of Mi-Secret bandy applicator included in tepackage.
Soak applicator thoroughly with Mk-Secr AtKiller and ple in ~uways of
ants. Keep applicators wet with Mi-Secretuntil all ants are gone. MieerSet will
*- -- _-- A-_--------------- SI__ ^ -* *
queen and young ants. Mi-Secret Ant Killer is a scientific formula for pts 4e-
signed to exterminate entire colonies, rather than simply kill off the few w P
may be attracted to it. Use it freely to completely rid your house and garexpo
ants. Mi-Secret Ant Killer contains ingredients especially azatctive to apts, but
the poison is of such strength that the workers eatingit wilt carry it back Ao the
colony to feed the queens and their young. While Mi-Secret may be used to good
advantage inside the house, it is preferable to place in runways outside the ouser
and in your garden which soon draws the ants from the inside. The Ja#ug
applicator included with each bottle is an exclusive feature, eliminating all es
and bother, and making Mi-Secret so easy to use. Out or break off 2-inch b p
of the applicator, saturate thoroughly with Mi-Secret Ant Killer and ac
runways of ants in and around the house and garden. Keep strips saturted with
poison until ants disappear, which will be from within a few hours to a day or a q
depending on the size of the colony," borne on the circular enclosed aid i4pp
with the product, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and eisa
purchasers, since the product would not control Argentine and other ants wol
not exterminate entire colonies of ants, and would not rid the house and r
On February 25, 1941, pleas of nolo contender were entered and a finue of t5
was imposed upon each of the two defendants.
Assistant Seoetary of
1789. Misbranding of NO-SMUT. IU. S. v. The DePeee Company, a corporaton.
Plea of nolo eontendere. Fine, $100. (I. & F. No. 2196. Sample No. 4136-E.)
It was erroneously stated on the label that Liquor Formaldehyde constituted
one of the active ingredients, that the product contained but 73 percent
ingredients, and that it would act as an effective treatment for covered V
barley, stinky smut of wheat, and loose smut of oats when used as directed.
On February 1, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western Disrict ot
Michigan, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fled i
district court an information against The DePree Co., a corporation, Iofbi
Mich., alleging shipment in interstate commerce, on or about March 14, 1940
from Holland, Mich., into the State of Illinois, of a quantity of NO-SMUT
was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Aet e
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, 'Active
Ingredients: Liquor Formaldehyde U. S. P. 25%, Phenol U. S. P. 2% Inert
Ingredients 73%," borne on the label, were false and misleading and tended to
deceive and mislead purchasers, since the active ingredients of the article
not consist of liquor formaldehyde and phenol, but did consist of formal'
and phenol, and the article contained inert ingredients in a proportion g
than 73 percent. The product was alleged to be misbranded further i
the statements, "NO-SMUT An effective Treatment for Covered Smut of
Sinky Smut of Wheat Loose Smut of Oats % pint of NO-SMUT is suffic
treat 20 bushels of grain effectively. Direetions for Treating
Use 8 ounces NO-SMUT (half pint) to 4 quarts of water for treating 20
of wheat. Sprinkle or spray the grain with the solution. Shovel over
three times, then throw blanket or canvas over the pile for two hours. If grain
is bagged and tied immediately after treatment, cover the bags and let stand
Two Hours. Caution: If Wheat is not sown within Two Hours after teiat
remove covering and spread out pile to allow the disinfecting gases to
cape. Directions For Treating Oats Barley Clean and treat 20 bushels
of grain at a time. For each 20 bushels use 8 ounces of NO-SMUT (one-h t
to 4 quarts of water. Sprinkle or spray the grain with this solution. Shovel
wor ftwn nr t'hrhoo fimnor than thr'r a hllnilf rat nv nanra nra, thn "fln i"Fnr. -mn
INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 1778-1789
Bug-Lo : ,
Richter, Irene H-.
Dry Dip :
nan, and Mintz. Alex-
iucts Co ___.
cide Perfumed Fly
Iilton L. .
ite Products Co ....
Ross 0., and Firke.
Sidney G., and Simons,
rate Products Co.....
, Ross O., and Firke,
National Pine-0 Disinfectant:
National Soap Co -----
Nik-Teen Tobacco Products Co_
DePree Co ------
Ross, Hyman, and Mintz,
Ross Products Co-- .----
Powdered derris root:
Penick S. B., & Co.----
Universal Cedarized Naphthalene
Ross, Hyman, and Mints,
Alexander -----. --.--
Ross Products Co.----.--.
Universal Lavenderized Naphthalene
Ross, Hyman, and Mints,
Ross Products Co-----.-.....
Vitality Calcium Arsenate Dust:
it Lilly, Chas. H., Co t----.us 1
Vita-Ro Complete Rotenone Dust 100 :
Lilly, Chas. H., Coo......... __
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries with support from LYRASIS and the SIan Foundation
4 15~ 4g~:
UNIVERSITY OF FLORS
III 11111 III! II 1111 II 1111
3 1262 08582 5
2 l 3