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:
AA00008549:00037

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text


Issued May 1942

Agriculture .
ISTRATION.


"INSECTICIDE ACT


Insectidide Act]


etary o Agriculture, Wshington, D. C., February 23, 1942]
ranuag uAiceble Duty Powder." United
ieal & S'rtilizer C( ration. Plea of guilty. Fine
F. No. 2a24 .1. D. No.. 0.).
1 showed td1 it coni ed less copper, less tri-calcium
(As05)1, *Ibsrsenic |nnd more inert ingredients than
.The labei also bo unwarranted claims that the
hugs and bligh', f vegetable crops with hardy
.United Sttes atto ior the District. of Maryland,
mp
. SecretayoipfAgri re, filed in the district court
Miller ,h,'..ial & .rtilizer Corporation of Balti-
rfor sh nenit and ipmezit in interstate commerce,
.4rom t djity of B timore, State of Maryland, into
, vania quantity f. "Miller Double Duty Powder,"
and mis andid ins ~-icide and fungicide within the
A.t. of a0. n y''
:o be a. terated, i,, 3at its strength and purity f911
rd and, quality unJ r which it was'sold, namely,
.r altss) 12.75% r, *; or tri-caleium arsenate
'ot more than 41.00%oO; total 'arsenic oxide
o. ;,total arsenic (as metallic) not less t1an 9.1%*'
rtQ be misbranded, in that the statements, namely,
i.ts) 12.75%; commercial calcium arsenate 35,00%,
;,iner. ingredients not more than 41.00% .*
aot less .-an 14.00%.; t1tal arsenic (as metallic),'not
eDuty yowdq af s,., .a sDray for bugs *
P,~h ae, wer...c .otie copper:
pvte.abel, were,' a d.misleading and tended .tb
i. haser, .sincee..tie.. ^ilc contained metallic copper
. otion pes than 12.percent; commercial calcium
s. tan. .OQ.perce ':or tgi-calcium arsenate in a
prceat; i 't .,gre, %erts in a proportion greater .than
.oxide..(A [:,n. a. poportion.less than 14.00 percent,
,i in, a .EQrtion .s than 9.1percent, and it would
I blights .. vegetab .' eps with hardy .oliage.
.a of gu was en and the court imposed a fine


A. GOVEB B. Hfln
*? At eSt Betretary of Agriculture.
PhenoL- U."S1'vS. One 65-gal. Drum of
Mrmnnn4on, fotfelture, G destruction.
,' '" .f,




U Ii',


52S


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J.,I.F,


inert material, namely, water, in
center,.
On November 1'j1 Q1aclaima
nIation and forfeiture was entered
destroyed.


be adulterated, in that its strength and purity.
rd and quality under which it was sold, namely,


The product was alleged to
fell below the professed stand
"neutmateral water not over
Te product was alleged to
an teral water iot ove o.%
and tended to receive Nnid mis


a proportion
nt having a


was


much


appeared,
ordered


the statement, "inert
s false and misleading
the product contained
greater than 13.5 per


judgment of


that


condem-


the product


GROVER
Assistant Secretary of


B. HTL,
Agrioulture.-


1803. Adulteration and misbranding of Formaldehyde 40 Per Cent Solution.
U. S. v. Scientifice Supply Company, a corporation. Plea of nolo hbS
tender. Fine, $60. (I. & F. No. 2218. I. D. No. 1514.)
This product contained formaldehyde in a proportion less than 40 per centppi,
the proportion stated on the label. The product contained a substance w*Mh
wouizd be lujrious to the vegetation on which it was intended for use. 1 .
bottles c, ntaeied less than 1 gallon, the quantity stated on the label, and tAt
labei fatt4 tO bear the required ingredient statement. .
On agust 1, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado,
At|1ag upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the distrlt eokrt
qa information against the Scientific Supply Company, a Colorado Corporattoai,
9ever, Cob., alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about Septembe
, 1940, from Denver, Colo., into the State of New Mexico, of a quanttt:: t
~TFormaldehy3e 40 Per Cent Solution," which was an adulterated and. tfis-
branded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be adulterated, in that its strength and puinty
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, nam'eln
"Formtd ehjak 40 Per Cent Solution." The product was alleged to be adulter-
ated further, in that it was intended for ui on vegetation, namely, potat6M
an4 grain, and if UL thaeoin as directed e product would be injurious t"
sudh vegetation. --
The product wAS i e misbrande in that statements, namely, "'b."
malddyde 40 Per Cei~lflt and "One Gallon," borne on the label, were
falge nld intisleadn'g t tendd to deceive and mislead the purchaser, sis*
the product contained ormabidehyde in a p portion less than 40 per centit,
and each of the bottles contained less than gallon of the product. The prod-
uct was alleged to be misbranded further, in that it consisted, partially1 of
inert substances, namely substances other an formaldehyde, and the tan.
and gereenta e amount of each of the inert substances were not stated ldiVI
anxd ctrrecitl, or at all, on the label; nor, lieu thereof, were the name ha
percentage amount of each substance or in edient of the article having figi-
etdal properties, and the total percentage f the inert substances so prent
therein, stated plainly and correctly on the I el.
On October 31, 1941, a plea of nolo conte re was entered and on Novemiber
5, 1941, t ie of $60 was imposed.
*"~~~~~~ a^

1804. Adulteration and misbranding of "Pe
(J, .Horan and Son). Plea of nolob
year. (I. & F. No. 2191. Sample Nos. 53
d o "tbut in each of the two shipment


GnoLYvjua B. IIiLL,
distant Secretary of Agriculture.
go." UT. S. v. Lauranee J. Horan
ntendere. Sentence deterred forwl
12-D, 15,243-E.) .
contained less sonnn. iaim oiniiim


13.5%."
be misbranded, in that
," borne on the label, wa
lead the purchaser, since





NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


529


AboUt January 23, 19839, and March 27, 1940, from St. Louis, Mo., into the States
o. Iown and Illinois, of quantities of "Pestgd," which was an adulterated and
.&isbranded insecticide within the meaning of'the Insecticide Act of 1910.
..The product shipped into the State of Iow was alleged to be adulterated in
$tr at itsistrength and purity fell below the pro essed standard and quality under
.f.ih i4t was. sold, namely, "'Soap 11%, Calcin Arsenate 1%, Inert Ingredients
.. 8 Total Arsenic calculated as metallic arsenic .26%, Water Soluble
." th calculated as metallic arsenic .0005%."
"I~e. product involved in the Iowa shipment 'was alleged to be misbranded, in
iagt 4&e statements, "Soap 11% Calcium Arsenate 1% Total Arsenic, calculated
- 13 tU .t. Arsenic .26% Water Soluble Arsenic calculated as metallic arsenic
..I.ERT INGREDIENTS 88%" "Pestgo For Trees and Plants
ran'.Iertment For Plant Life Toxic to Tsects Pestgo-Protec-
t cticidal 'Pestgo' is recommended to mitigate the invasion of pests-in
.pe eip^ clmbing cutworms, termites, ants on all bark covered plants,
,M4frafl Tees, Vines and rubs. Of value against Scale Insects Of
desfructivhe value to larvae pupa and eggs on which applied. Made with natural
.lei.es thus assuring protection of some permanency. Of value, by contact, in
*.a.n. against infestation of chicken houses, by lice or termites. *
.treions Apply thoroughly and undiluted with brush or'spray, cover-
*giall wf... ace of the truik up to a height of about seven feet from the ground,
pav.vea"" size tree. It is.advisable to loosen ground around tree or shrub treated.
I-t .aes years to grow trees. Protect them with 'Pestgo'. Use at least twice a
4,r," .'borne on the label, were false and misleading. By reason of the state-
,medt .th. article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the pur-
ihsar, Ince the product contained soap in a proportion less than 11 percent,
gflaJcia qarsenate in a proportion less than 1 percent, total arsenic calculated as
ri..tf e grsenic in a proportion less than 0.26 percent, water soluble arsenic cal-
culated as metallic arsenic, in a proportion greater than .0005 percent, inert ingre-
Sjent.s in a proportion greater than 88 percent, and, when used as directed, it
*woud )pot mitigate pest ijivasion, would not repel climbing cutworms, termites,
bnd Ants, would not kill scale insects, would not destroy larvae, pupae, and eggs
,.p 'apats specified on the label, would not give permanent protection, would not
'b vtalue in guarding chicken houses from infestations of lice and termites, and
would not protect trees. ,.
'The product shipped into the State of Illinois was alleged to be adulterated, in
that.its strength and purity fell bMlow the professed standard and. quality under
."ich.it was sold, namely, Resinal Compound 40% Calcium Arsenate 1% INERT
*IWGREDIENTS 59% Totg1 Arsenic calculated as Metallic Arsenic .26% Water
iite Arsenic calculated 8s metallic arsenic .0005%."
'h.product involved in.the shipment to Illinois was alleged to be misbranded,
b.fthe statements, 'Resinal Compound 40% Calcium Arsenate 1% INERT
R8D.1ENTS 59% Total Arsenic calculated as Metallic Arsenic .26% Water
i.le Arsenic calculated4as metallic arsenic .0005%" "Pestgo for Trees
.iai.tt A Modern Treatmeni For Plant Life Toxic to Insects *
*pQTP tective-Insecticidal 'Pestro' is recommended to mitigate the invasion of
g--in repelling climbing eutworms termites, ants on all bark covered
jqfrte such as Trees, Vines and Shrtibs. Of value against Scale Insects *
destructivee value to larvae, papa .and eggs: on which applied. Made with
, hat ral adhesives thu assuring Irrdtection of some permanency. Of value, by
mictkct, in 'guarding agathist infestaLion of chicken houses, by lice or termites.
,* Directions **,,. Apply.thoroughly and undiluted with brush or
ufy1 covering all surfiqe of the .rFpk up to a height of about seven feet from
h-e tound, on average size tree. If is advisable to loosen ground around tree
-f 'sstlrb treated. It takes year, to grow trees.. Protect them with 'Pestgo'.
: TTnft at lpant twirp n sparnnn." hnrnp on fhlp Inhbl 7aro0 fuma onr nndcinanaer anA





539


INSECTICiDE


ACT


notb f of vaihe in guarding chicken houses from infestations of lice and termites
and Wbutl not protect trees. .
On December 1 1941 a lea of nolo contender was entered and the. court
d.A.n that oninn ba dtV~ fn 1 noo


rJ. UC CU LeCre L aC- LCeLLLC Ue UCreJLd' LUt JLrA -


1805. Adulteration and misbranding of
Sbranding of 4ShnCand Ta
iInc. Plea t guilt 50
An analysis pf therpine.oitl sian
ain part, for pine piL. The label fa
ment. The label alSo boe inwarrant
asi directed, woqld act as a Isin( tan
of a flies and 411 vruiln.
' ,The label for the ci" tar. di ceta'
statement and tAe label bore unwarrant
product would disinfect and would con
On October 194%4, the Unite Sta
New York, acting upon a r~porey th
district court ja jbformatihn a inst
alleging hipmrent in interrs4te commer
Brooklyn, N. Y.,A into the State of Newt
Oi Diisiintectant'' whIc4 was an adul
fungicide, and a quantity of "Shanda
UMitairnded insecticide and fungicide.


SAct of 1 I "e
4The pine oil disTinf ant was l d
consist entirely of pil disiuft
oil had been substitute in par r the p
The pine oil disittfecitnt was a l ed to b
"Pine Oil Dinfectant irectio
cupto &a dtfof wver, Wor Spraying use 1
freely wherever fies or vermin may brei
teridei to deceive an mislead the purcha:
as a disinfectant, gnd would ot preveu
vermin, when used as directed. This prn
*fnrtbor ^n~~~~~ ~ thei" t* rtiiisfarr"" "i^~tllyn
further, in that it consisted partially, ol
and the name and tihepercentage amount
correctly, or at all, o& t~e label; or, in l
centage amout of each and evey Substan
insectda or fungitedil properttes, and t
stance sd resent therein, stated plainly a
The coal tar dksnfectrntt was kileged t
ienets, "Shanday CoaI Tar DisiLetant *
etc., use half cup to a pail of water. F
of water. Spray freely whereyer flies or
tileteading and tended to da>teeve and misl
Wuld not act as a disinfectant when t
alleged to be misbrati fifth in tha
substance, namely, -w and name
were not stated plainly tnd ced'ictly, o
theyof, were the name and the percentage
Odr ingredient of the article havim insectic
total percentageof the suS nce so


t


e arl. .S .;..
GBOVE B. HU- ;
As.tata.nt Secretary of Agrioul stru:
"Shanday Pine Oil Disinfectant" anu mlS-
r Disinfectant." U. S. v. Shane & Hays,
. (I. & F. No. 2221. I. D. Nos. 1975.19T7.)
t showed that mineral oil had been substi-
iled to bear the required ingredient state-
ed claims that the product, when wseil
t and that it would prevent the breedizig
nt failed to bear the required ingteient
ed claims that, when used as direct; the
trol flies and all vermin.
tes attorney for the Eastern District of
ie Secretary- of Agriculture, filed 'in the
Shane & "Hays, Inc., Brooklyn,' N, Y.,
rce on or about November 27, 1940, froin
Jersey, of a quantity of "Shanday Pine
terated and misbranded insecticide and
y Coal Tar Disinfectant," which was a
within the meaning of the Insecticide


to be adulterated, since it did not
Another substance, namely, mineral
ine oil disinfectant.
'e misbranded in that the statements,
ns for cleaning floors, etc., uise lhlt
al cup to a gallon of water. Spray
ed,' were false and misleading 'a94
se since the product would rtot Wtt
it fe breeding of all flies and..'.al
d6 t was alleged to be misbranded
- a inert substance, namely, water
t reof were not stated plainly and
lie thereof, were the name, and pey-
ce r ingredient of the article having
h total percentage of the inert suh-
tn correctly, or at all, on the labeb.
o e misbranded, in that the 'tte-
S* Directions for cleaning fits,
r praying use half cup to a lqn
min may breed," were falke.ahnd
le the purchaser, since the produt.
is as directed. This product was
t consisted, partially, bf an Inert
I the percentage amount thereof
r It all, on the label: nor, in lieu
aount of each and every substance~
id or fungicidal properties, anfl tb
Sesent therein, stated plainly and





Ut-]


NOTICES OF


JUDG NT


531


tamer13, .1541,' the United States a .orney for the District of Mary-
*ajting upon a report .by the Secretary o Agriculture, fled in the district
a libel against five 5-pound packages and fifty 2-pound packages of
d. o.- !"iat Pocom0he City, Md., alleging t at- the article had been shipped
H.:ka~te comrneroeaon or about May 21, 1 1, from Charlotte, N. C., by the
ami~ycolife Co.; and charging that the pr duet was a misbranded insecti-
.i*thin the meaning otthe Insecticide Act of 1910.
Jproduet was alleged .to be misbranded,' in that it consisted wholly of
: ....pubstances, and the name and percentage, amount of the inert substances
Hlq sitstaid plainly and'dorrectly, or at all,A:An the label.
[, et. jroduet,'was alleged to be misbranded farther, in that the statements,
*d W6.M.e ThecInsecticided '.Plant Food .-,* A Complete High Analysis
H H taut.Food.with Non-Poisonous Insecticide for the Prevention and Control of
l1i .~ a,.nd'"SapSuckipg Insects *. sBycolife A Completely Insee-
..dSatu"Food Followrthese directions: Roses--Pull the dirt away from
the talk for two or three .:inches deep enough .to see the roots, apply a table-
,...nSMI around the plknt, cover with dirt and water well. Pot Plants-
H,,,. : 'flng With, your finger around near the pot,.'dust Bycolife sparingly, cover
H .i tad water. Shabs-Pull dirt away from plant six to twelve inches
lf,,tb the feed roots, .apply Bycolife according to the size of the Shrub.
H 4ij t t:and water .horoughly. Trees-Tull dirt away from the body
...... m 12 fB
.18 inches. Ajply from 3 to 5 lbs.requally all around, cover and
.H ypaptiyn-AlwayaP enough Bycolifr eto fertilize the plant and the
.-...... .1H.will do the .est. Follow with another application as often as
: ~ H ".. .. 1
Jr-:Bycolife A Cdrnplete Non-Bur'ning Fertilizer Tested for three years
a,"ll -kinds of Flowers, Trees and Shrubas.;t A NEW IDEA in preventing
f. T he plant take.."up the fertilizer through-the Feed Roots and in so
*": 7'> .ktetieides each leaf and limb ," .:.borne on the label, were false
!. 14 .ading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the
' when used as ditcted, would not prevent and control leaf-eating and
-t wEng.insects, would ot prevent insects, and would not render each leaf
h.. Vtb dnseeticidal.
r t.nroJOd0obdrt22, 1941, a.:decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered
and the product was ordered to be destroyed.
I :':" :": : '* GROVER B. HILL.


. ... : ":.. .. ..\


Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.


.,S7 Mialbrauplirg. of "Graind Prize Brand Inseeticide Spray." U. S. v. Morris H.
.....Siu, germaan (Bannur.Produets Company). Plea of nolo contendere. No
,:;. ]''fines assessed. (I. 8: F. No. 2211. 1. D. No. 123.)
." .Pacokges' ontained...less of the product than was stated on the label.
..] .. .lso bo re unw a.." nted claims that the product, when used as directed,
h c ,trol certain insects named on the label.
?..31 1941, the-. united States attorney for the Eastern District of
] at..:,...gting upon a.,report by. .the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
, r.ot..o.an information against Morris .I. Singerman, .trading at S. Louis,
.,ider the name of the Banner Products Company, alleging shipment in
te 'commerce, on or about June 21, 1940, from St. Louis, Mo., into the
.Arhansas, of .a (quantity 9 "Grand Prize Brand Insecticide Spray,"
.was a misbrand )-=insecticitebwithin the meaning of the Insecticide Act


: was ale
S,''borne


~gr~ !~.
Rn.


" ot]


,Carpet


,,to be o


- fl-a a. new fl-s


L1branded, in that the statement, "Contents
1 was falser.and misleading and tended to
..dee the cans contamed less than 16 fluid
10 1e misbranded further, in that the state-
4 --Weevils Brush articles thoroughly and


.'A rlh


d l DOll





532


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., L.F.


Misbranding of Brown's Arsenate of Lead Cartridge.
Brown Company, a New York Corporation. Plea of
on each of two accounts. Payment suspended on
(I. &F. No. 2216, I. D. No. 289.)


U. S. v. The .C.
guilty. Fine, .25
the second omuAt.


This product was found to contain more water-soluble arsenic and -m'ae
arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as per centum of metallic armenic,
than was stated on the Tabet 'The label also bore unwarranted elaima that
the product, when used as directed, would make more gallons of spray, would
act as an effective isecticide, and would control the potato beetle and the

On July 28, 1941, the United States attorney for the Western District of
Wew York, actig uipot a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
tict court an in0frmation against The E. C. Brown Company, a New York
eerporatit, Rochester, N. Y., alleging shipment in interstate commerce, on or
about July 25, 194O/tr om Rochester, N. Y., into the State of Ohio, of a quantity
-of "'BW's senate of Lead Cartridge," which was a misbranded insecticide,
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The iiriuct was alleged to be misbranded, in that the statements, "Not
moe tatn SO% water enic Oxide, equivalent to not more than
53% borne on me label, were false and misleading and tended
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the product contained water-
solubl arsenic in a prnqrtion much greater than 0.76 per centum, equivalent
to more than 0 p ecentu when expressed as metallic arsenic.
Th&produat was allege to be misbranded further, in that the statements,
Brown's Arsenate of Lead Cartridge For Use in Brown's Magic Garden Hose
Sprayer Recommended as a control of certain chewing or foliage eating insects
ueh as potato beetle, teit caterpillar. Directions Insert cartridge in


barrel


sprayed 4lurn


water


spray


foliage


applications, as often necessary, are recommended.
in sie, part carttie may be added to maintain
tridge is dRtgned t make 5 gallons of spra," borne
and mialeadi and tended to deceive and mislead
product when used as directed, would not make 5 ga
act Saaat!ctive in ide, and would not control
tent tterpilla s
On apteixner 8,14l1, a plea of guilty ws entered
impose& on each Of the tfo sliuts. Payme of the
was suspended.


A instant Se


1so9t~


This
gredie
claims


Adulteration and misbrandingof Gemec
RduldAnR-&
and Nathn Ror1 (Giem Products &i
$400,L (I. & F. No. 2217. I. D. 1252.)
productst wa fodt cothe less
nts thaestatldn thelabel.
that te rioduct ldi control and l


disease R an that itvs \wa ic
On Jul 8*. 1 v -41 t !<


Michian, acting upon
district court an inft
partners, tradingg as
Ihipment in interstate


s an e active germ
he United States

omtio against
the Gem Products
commerce. on or


icidi
attc
Sec
Sam
&
ab(


) Stat~e xnnm
ich., .into the State of "ltnois, of a quanti
Was W adulterated and misbranded fung
Tnsectigide Act of 1910.


As
con
on
the
ion


thoroughly.
cartridge
centration.
the label,
purchaser,
LS of spray,


the potato


Repeated
diminishes
This ear-
were false
since the
would not


beetle or the


d and a fine of $25 was
fine on the second count

GaOVE B. Hnz.,
secretary of Agriculture.


ermn Spray. UI. S. v. Sanmuel aff
Mfg. Co.). Plea of guilty. FWne,
formaldehydee and more inert in-
[he label also bore unwarranted
*event the spreading of infectious


ney for
etary of
el Rouff
Jfg. Co.,
it August


the Eastern
Agriculture,
and Nathan
Detroit, Mic
21, 1940, fr


r of "Gemco Germ Sp
de, within the mean


District f of
filed in the
Bouff, co-
h., alleging
om Detroit,
ray," whfc*h
ing of the


C


1808.


p
p




'~
Lii
r
Hi**r.
H
-. ~4A8Zi3
*iI -
a1 H~.


NOTICES' OF


IUDGMmINT
C


533


I Product To Control And Prevent The Spreading Of Many Infectious
i|t. In spraying Gemco Germ Spray, usb full strength Gemco
ji "Bpray will be found very effective for uses in hospitals, schools, county
iirtStfll., clubs and public buildings," bortre on the label, were false and
-Uf ,l ..tng and tended to deceive and mislead te purchaser, in that the product
n;l.d not control and prevent the spreading Of infectious diseases nor would
je ftBeetive as a germicide for use in hospitals, schools, county infirmaries,
tliiiBH. and public buildings.
On.;,. &* .. September 22, 1911, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $400 was

f Gno..v B*". H" G. o B.
EiLE...^S. :::.. "!.:"'.. :,B V B > U L
.' ".:..;..":...- Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.
:*.' -, :. ..
.., 1t '.- Adul-teration and misbranding of Clorox. U. S. v. 8 Cases, Each Contain-
pi:,:, "~ijg 24 Bottles of Clorox. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
F:. .,. :.. a" d destruction. (I( & F. No. 2222. I. D. No. 1891.)
:. :, product was found to contain less sodium hypochlorite and more inert
Ji & ents than was stated on the label. The label also bore unwarranted
.ikfrtha the product would make a disinfecting solution containing more parts
..i m.iton of available chlbrine than the product was capable of producing, and
list it wqutjl make a solution equal in disinfecting properties to Dakin's solu-
tion, when Diluted as directed.
9n I"..t 3, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Texas,
.ii S:ipon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a
W..:g seizure and condemnation of 8% cases, each containing 24 bottles of
.- iat Beaumont, Tex.,- alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-
!.:cosi:.erce on or about May 15 and August 8, 1940, by the Clorox Chemical
e 't..rea: Jersey City, N.. ., and charging that the product was an adulterated
I:.... m eandued fungicide, Within the.meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
j: 'bp.''ogbduct was alleged 'o be adulterated, in that its strength and purity fell
Sbelow.the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, namely,
"Active Ingredient, Sodium Hypochlorite, 5.25%, by wt., Inert Ingredients,
94.75%, by wt."
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Active
Ingredient, Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25%, by wt., Inert Ingredients 94.75%, by
wt.," borne on the label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and
mislead the purchaser, since the product contained less sodium hypochlorite
S,..;i-.,miore ilert ingredients than were stated on the label. The product was
'.'a..lleged to be misbranded further, in that the statements, "Disinfects *
ii':.o prepare a disinfecting solution containing 100 parts per million Available
.'..c riae----Add 1 oz. Clorox for each 4 gals cold water; mix well. *
Oe. t .(rt Clorox thoroughly mixed with 10 parts cold water makes a sodium
ti.. lhiorite solution equal in disinfecting properties to Dakin's solution," borne
:i, the: label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the
:p.." liaser., since the product would not make a disinfecting solution containing
l.t parts per million of available chlorine, and it would not make a solution
equal, in disinfecting properties, to Dakin's solution, when diluted as directed.
O....n r.September 26, 1941, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemna-
i.:, tn.and forfeiture was entered and the product was ordered to be destroyed.
GROVE B. HI.T.
A r,.-------.,F S' L S .-


I ~ iiii*


'H.
I."


Assistant 8eoretary of Agriculture.


E8.. Misbranding of Arnol Dorm-O-Spray, U. S.v. Garden Hose Spray Company,
... Inc. Plea of guilty. .ine, $10, (I. & V. No. 2225. I. D. No. 1728.)
;The. label for this prodfItt bore inwairranted claims that it would be an effec-
e-aC ,.4 4. ~ w 1 1 n Ann- a --. t-A -


k






534


INSECTICIDE


borne on the individual cartons, and


ridges


Dorm-O-Spray


* *


borne on the display cartons,


mislead


purchaser,


s


not act as an effective spray


it save the garden from


the statements,


'Arnold Insect.ic


K Save your garden from insects and
were false and' misle ding and tended
since the product, w en used as directt
against insects in the dormant stages


insects and disease.


On October
imposed.


194Z


a plea


oq guilty
qi


was entered


a fine ta


GtRQYEr f
Assistant Secretary of A


1

II*
INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 1801-1811


S
I


Arnold Dorm-O-Spray:
Garden Hose Spray Co., Inc..--
Brown's Arsenate of Lead Cartridge:


Brown


,E.C.


Co--


Bycolife:
.Bynum Bycolife Co-
Clorox:
Clorox Chemical Co-


- ------ -.

------------- -


Formaldebyde 40 Per Cent Solution:
Scientific Supply Co---........
Oemco Germ Spray:
Gem Products & Mfg. Co ....


Roufft, Samuel an
Nathan ----.......- -


Rouf,


N. J. No.


1811

1808

1806

1810

1803

1809

1809


jr I~ ~ A


Grand Prize Brand Insecticide
Banner Products Co-.
Singerman, Morris B...
Miller Double Duty Powder:
Miller Chemical- & .e
Corporation --.......


PefStgo


- ~ --
0 p I..


. ,,u


Hiran, J. J., and Son. -
Hgran, Laurance J,T.-.....,.
Phenosol: ; "* ""
Sban y Coal Tar Disinfuetant u i r'
Shan Shane & Hays., Inme- .....
Shany Pine Oil Disinfecta. t
hane & Rays, Inc- .4-.
.;- *
S. .:


* 'I
* .
I..
* .1.1


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

11r11ff1111I I 111111 II11 1111 1MIII
3 1262 086 82 ::

:. ; ii f
A, .4.,I ta4T^
I.,: .
.* *
"=,* i i:"i i :* "

n ...t .



: ..
*. : r
.


.:-';..: *
j*h *".."*.EJ' .P ~l-





"*.* !,!. : ** .
.... .....:::::..:..**....*.


I


K


40U