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:
AA00008549:00038

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text


* ** f :
N. J.,I. F. 1790-1800
* a a m
.4!


Issued January 1942


* nr~ '

*jrr
*
~"1;.2~
1%> ~
~tf~ NI
A
att 1~P?


4..
:3~& *~..-


United


States


Department


Agriculture


AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE


ICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE ACT


i


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]


A.:.
*.i *! I!


1790-1800


I
~
V.


..tf : y the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. Washington, D. C., November 21, 1941]
i .r hi hramding of "Sterolube." U. S. v. 20 Pint Cans of "Sterolube." Default
. ..1. decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2182.
u: p :: .Sinple No. 13316-E.)
. ." 'd tuct was labeled as "Sterolube," implying thereby that it would ster-
.e ', w reas it would not. The label did not bear the required ingredient
statement.
ip-.utpril 29, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon,
M.tf wupon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
Sblpl'praying seizure and condemnation of 20 pint cans of Sterolube at Portland,
Og. alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or
auft N6vember 9, 1939, by Hayden Mounger, from Los Angeles, Calif., and
. ,arging that it was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide
*: It.tef 1910. -
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "Sterolube,"
bOuMneon the label, was false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead
pwehasers, since the product would not act as a sterilizer. The product was
a lleged.. be .misbranded further, in that it consisted partially of inert substances,
xaeelr, substances other than phenols and essential oils, and the name and the
S@eetaPge amount of the inert substances were not stated plainly and correctly,
..4w .ill,, wn.m the label affixed to the cans; nor, in lien thereof, were the name
and the percentage amount of each and every substance or ingredient having
*wnmda$ (bactericidal) properties, and the total percentage of the inert sub-
"~as ;.stated. plainly and correctly, or at all, on the label affixed to the cans.
''.a%1y 10, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation and
-.totitire was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


a --


As
HI Ant*
::..?"'.:^,- ::
.J. &nulteratlon and mnabranding of Pine Oil
.r7 4. 'Plte Oil Disinfeetant. Default decree
. ....i'.-.'..oduet ordered to be delivered to a
. i4.. ; No.. 2207. I, D.No. 1041.)
.:.....1 hprodneuct was found to consist, in part, of
., t ingredient on the label; it was found to j
...t|hat stated on the label; and the label failh


GBOVER B. HILL,
stant Secretary of Agriculture.

Disinfectant. U. S. v. 21 Cans of
of condemnation and forfeiture.
charitable institution. (I. & F.

mineral oil, without a statement
possess a phenol coefficient of less
ed to bear the required ingredient


" .. **. february 6, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
.u.. "k k acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the





518


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. j., I. F.


.The product was alleged to be misbranded, in that the sta
Disinfectant A Disinfectant Made frem pure Steam Distilled
Phen. Ooe.-2 plus,' borne on the label, were false and mislead
of the statements the product was labeled oas to deceive and
since it did not consist conipletelyfof pfine oil disinfectant mad
distilled pine oil, and did not possess a phenol coefficient of 2
was alleged to be mipbranded further, in that it consisted pa
substance, namely, mineral oft and the name and the perceuta
were notstated paily amdt ct e on the label; nor, in lieu
name and the percentage amount of each and every substance
the product having fungididal properties, and the total perce
substances present therein, stated plainly and correctly on the
On March 17, 1941, no claimant having appeared, a decree of
forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the product
charitable institution for its own use, but not for sale.


tements, "Pine Oil
.Pine Oil *
ing, and by reason
mislead purchasers,
e from pure steam-
plus. The product


Lrtially of an
ige amount th4
i thereof, wern
;e or ingrediel
ntage of the
label.
condemnation
be delivered


-7-- -


inert
ereof
e the
it of
inert

and
to a


iROVEB fl. JilL,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.


1792. Adulteration and misbranding of Altman's Hypoehlorite Soltion, uand
Louse Powder, and misbranding of Clor-A-Ster, and Altman's Cresol
Disifeetant. U, S. v. R. S. Altman, trading as the Irwnin Chemical Com-
pany. Plea of nolo contender. Nne, $100 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2204.
I. D. Nos. 280, 283, 285, 286.)
Samples of the Altmans Hypoechlorite Solution were found to contain less
sodium hypochlorite than WRs stated on the label, the product was not non-
poisonous, as stated, nor was it 10 times more powerful than carbolic acid, as a
germ destroyer. The label and a circular shipped with the product bore unwar-
ranted claims that the product would act as an effeette disinfectant, when used
as directed, and that the product would destroy all bacteria, kill all germs, and
sterilize dairy equipment. The label also failed to bter the required ingredient
statement.
The label found on the samples of the Clor-A-Ster bore unwarranted statements
that it would sterilize and would be an effective germicide for use in dairies. The
label for this product also failed to bear the required ingredient statement.
Samples of the Louse Powder were found to obtain less naphthalene than was
stated on the label, which also bore an uanarranted statement that the product
would prevent poultry lice when used as directed. The label failed to bear the
required ingredient statement.
Samples of the Altmans 'Oresol Disinfectant werd found to consist chiefly
of coal-tar neutral oils with smaller amounts of coal-tar acids, soap, and water.
The lbel bore unwarranted statements tit the product would produce perma-
nent disinfection and that as a gm destroyer it. was four times as strong as
carbolic acid. The label failed to bear the required ingredient statement.
On February 3, 1941, the United Statef attorney for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court of infoIrmaton against R, S. Altman, trading at Irwin, Pa., under
tbe name of the Irwiu Chemioeal Company. It was alleged that shipment was
made in interstate eommeree in the year 1940 (the exact month and day of which
are unknown), from Irwin, Pa., into the State of West Virginia, of a quantity of
Altman's Hypoehiorite Solutio, which was an adulterated and misbranded
fungicides a quantity of Olr-A-Ster, which was a misbranded fungicide, a quan-
tity of Louse Powder, whitc was an adulterated and misbranded insectledie, and
a quantity of Altman's Cresol Disinfectant, which was a misbranded fungicide,
an within the meaning ef tke ITsecticide Act of 1910.
The Altmans Hypoeioride Solution was alleged to be adulterated, since its-






19fl-1800]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


519


litter using pint of Hypoc
that Hypochlorite be added
Ineibaters-spray with sol
Dairy Equipment *
bottles, strainers, cans, pail
chlqrte to each gallon of v
two tablespoons of Hypo hie
. ... *S This will keep it *
.teth-Clean and disinfect
of.Hypochlorite added," we
meaits the product was labe
contained sodium hypochlo
nonpeisonous; it was not 1
destroyer; it was not an ef
not destroy all bacteria; w4
e uipment. This product v
sfted partially of inert sub
chlorite, and the name and i


and correctly
The Clor-A
iher *
100 *
rather, etc., i
5( P. P. M. c
leading, and


on the
-Ster w
Chart
Farm
rinse w
by reas o
by reas


and mislead the pt
effective germicide f
ow milk pumps, whe
was alleged to be
substances, namely,


! IS
sas
: ol
iI.
'iti


hlorite to the gallon of water. *
to all drinking water to kill gem
ution of two tablespoons to ea
to sterilize milking E
s, and al equipment, using two 1
vater. Bath Room and Sink--ri
trite to each gallon of water. *
free from germs, *
by soaking in a half glass of wat
re false and misleading; and by


* It is essential
Ls eggs and
ch gallon of water.
machines, separators,
tablespoonss of Hypo-
nse in a solution of
* Refrigerators-
Tooth Brush, False
er with one teaspoon
reason of the state-


0 times more powerful than carbolic acid as a
T'ective disinfectant when used as directed; it
would not kill all germs; and would not sterilize
as alleged to be misbranded further, in that i


solution A


* For bott


le fill


lers, 1
were
beled
nd w
cans,
label


w
d
t


stances, namely, substances other than sodium hi
percentage amount thereof were not stated plainly


;erm
would
airy
con-
ypo-
and


centage amount
properties, and
stated plainly


Steril-
.P.M.
, sepa-


pumps, etc., use
False and mis-
so as to deceive
would not be an
separators, etc.,
I. This product


6d partially
lorite, and


and percentage amount thereof were not stated plainly and correctly on the label


nor in lieu thereof were the name
ingredient of the product having
of the inert substances so present t
The Louse Powder was alleged
fell below the professed standard
"Naphthaline 10%." This produ


statements, "Louse
Poultry M
the fowl use it as
lice," borne on the
ments the product
t.e product would
trained naphthalene
to bte misbranded


and the percentage amount
fungicidal properties, and
herein, stated plainly and c
to be adulterated, since its
and quality under which i
ct was alleged to be misb


t of the
the tota
orrectly
strength
t was sI
branded,


substance or
percentage
)m the label.
and purity
Id, namely:
in that the


Powder Naphthaline 10% DTREC
ix one package of Louse Powder with a bushel of ashes,


a dust bath
label, were
was labeled
not prevent
in a proport
further. in


. This i
false anB
so as to
poultry
ion less t
that it


a very effective preventive for
misleading, and by reason of th
receive and mislead the purchase
ice, when used as directed, and
an 10 percent. This product was


, partially


inert


consisted


i


TIONS
letting
poultry
e state-
r, since
it con-
alleged


substances,


namely, substances other than naphthalene, nicotine, and pyrethrins, and the
Maime and the percentage amount of the inert substances were not stated plainly
and correctly on the label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage
amount of each substance or ingredient of the product having insecticidal prop-
erties, and the total percentage of the inert substances so present therein, stated
plainly and correctly on the label.


led so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since it
rite in a proportion less than 5 percent; it was not


correctly on the label; nor in lieu thereof were the name and pern
of the substance or ingredient of the product having fungicidal
the total percentage of the inert substances so present therein,


bel.
alleged to be misbranded, in that the statements,
Solutions Clor-A-Ster A-, Ounce Water 15 Gal. P
'airies-Bottle Sterilizers, bottle fillers, pails, cans,


z. to 15 gal. water, borne on the label,
'on of the statements the product was lal
irchaser, since it would not sterilize a
'or milk bottles, bottle fillers, milk pails,
n used at the dilutions specified on the
misbranded further, in that it consist
substances other than calcium brpoch


of inert
the name


iT





520 S SCTICrW AOT [N. .

ingredient of the product having fungicidal properties, and the total percentage
of the inert substances so present therein, stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On April 10, 1941, a plea of nolo contender was entered and the court iised
a fine of $100 and costs.
-ROVER B. Hu, .
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.
1793. Misbranding of Sheps Plant Spray. United States v. Anson 1. Shepard
(Shepard Laboratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, $40. (I. & F. No. 2205.
Sample Nos. 16229-E, 16230-E.)
The shipment in this case involved %-oz. and 1%-oz. bottles of the product. The
labels did not bear the required ingredient statement. The labels bore unwar-
ranted claims that the product was nonpoisonous and that it would act fTn
effective insecticide against various insects.
On March 31, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
an information against Anson L. Shepard, trading at Omaha, Nebr., under the
name of the Shepard Laboratories, alleging shipment in interstate commerce, on
or about March 1, 1940, from Omaha, Nebr., into the State of Missouri, odt a
quantity of "Sheps Plant Spray," which was a misbranded insecticide, within the
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
'T!he product contained in the %-oz. bottles was alleged to be misbr4n
the statements (on bottle label), "Sheps Plant Spray Non-Poisonous *....
High Killing Power Spray regularly to Kill and Control ATts, *
Worms, Bugs, Contents % oz. Makes 2 gallons DILUTIONS Half
strength solution % teaspoonful to 1 Qt. Water. Normal strength solution 1
teaspoonful to 1 Qt. Water. Double strength solution 2 teaspoonfuls to 1 Qt
Water," (on individual carton), "Sheps Plant Spray Non-Poisonous
* Harvnmlaao c4n children bir

Plant Insects *
Mildew (down) *
carton), "Sheps N


* *Kills and Controls Ai
* Rose Chafer *
on-Poisonous Plant Spray


ts Leaf Roller
* and other insects' o 4i
High Killing Power Klils


Insects on Flowers, Vines, Vegetables, Shrubs and Small Fruit Harmless
to Humans, Birds, Animals, Pets," together with certain statements
circular shipped with the article, were false and misleading; and by reason f
the statements the product was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,


since it was not nonpoisonous;
that infest or attack garden fl
and house plants, when used
against such insects; it would
vegetables, and small fruit, an
chafers, and other insects; it
used as directed; it would not


it would not kill and control ants, worms, and bugs
owers, roses, vegetables, vines, shrubs, small fruit,
as directed; it did not possess high-killing power
not kill all plant insects on flowers, imM
d would not kill and control ants, leaf rollers, rose
would not control downy mildews of plants when
effectively rid your growing things of insect pests


or keep them free from the vast army of chewing and sucking plant destroyers
when used as directed; its use would not protect every growing thing and flowers,
vegetables, vines, shrubs, and small fruit from insects; it would not protect
ferns, house plants, lawns, gardens, greenhouse, and garden soil from insects,
nor safeguard plants from insects; and it would not kill Japanese beetles, tomato
worms, caterpillars, beetles, worms, and ants, when used as direct~t
The product contained in the 1%-oz. bottles was alleged to be misbranded in
that the statements (on bottle label), "Sheps Plant Spray NON-POISONOUS
* High Killing Power Contents 1% oz. Makes 6 gallons. t .
Spray regularly to Kill and Control Ants, Worms, Bugs, One
of the famous Sheps' Non-poisonous Insecticides,. Makes 6 gallons, DILUTIONS


[






1390-1800]
. .


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


521


small fruits, and house plants, and it did not possess
used as directed; it would not kill all plant insects on fl
tables, and small fruit, nor would it kill and contr4
chafers, and other insects when used as directed; and i
mildew on plants when used as directed.
The product in both the small bottles and the large
misbranded in that it consisted partially of an inert
and the name and the percentage amount thereof we
correctly on the label; nor in lieu thereof were the
amount of each and every substance or ingredient of
cidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert su
stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On April 18, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered and a


high killing power when
owers, vines, shrubs, vege-
ol ants, leaf rollers, rose
t would not control downy


bottles we
substance,
re not sta
name and
the article
bstance so


as alleged to be
namely, water,
ted plainly and
the percentage
having insecti-
present therein,


i fine of $40 was imposed.


GROVE B. Hn.L,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.
1794. Adulteration and misbranding of Perfection Lice Powder. U. S. v. I. B.
.- Rogers Company, a corporation. Plea of Guilty. Fine, $25 and costs.
(I. & F. No. 2202. Sample Nos. I. D. 116, 85063-D.)
SSamples of this product were found to contain less than 10 percent of sulfur,
the ambunt stated on the label.


On December 27,
Illinois, acting upoi
Court an informa
Danville, Il., alleg
and July 30, 1940,
quantities of "Per
branded insecticide


The product
and purity fell
namely, "sulfu
The product
ment, "sulfur 1
deceive and m
sulfur.
On May 14,
imposed.


1940, the United
n a report by the
tion against the
ing shipments in
from Danville, I
fection Lice Pov
within the mean


in each shipment
below the professe
r 10%."
in both shipments
[0%," borne on the
islead the purchase


States
Secret r
I. B. I
intersta
ill., into
vder," w
ing of th


i3
hi
le


torney foi
of Agricu
'gers Co.,
commerce
te States
ch was r
Insecticid


r the Eastern District of
Iture, filed in the District
an Illinois corporation,
e on or about January 6
of Iowa and Indiana, of
in adulterated and mis-
e Act of 1910.


'as alleged to be adulterated, in that its strength
d standard and quality under which it was sold,

was alleged to be misbranded, in that the state-
Slabel, was false and misleading and tended to
er, since it contained less than ib percent of


1941, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $25 and costs was


GROVERa B. HlL.,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.


1795. Misbranding of "Solukress." U. S. v. Kremers-Urban Co., a corporation.
Plea of nolo contender. Fine, $100. (I. & F. No. 2200. I. D. No. 1.)
This product was labeled as having a much higher Staphylococcus aureus
phenol coefficient than was actually possessed by the product. The label also
bore unwarranted claims that the product would sterilize instruments and that
it would be an effective disinfectant for general use, including sick rooms, etc.
On December 30, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Kremers-Urban Company, a corporation,
Milwaukee, Wis., alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about March 4,
1940, from Milwaukee, Wis., into the State of Illinois, of a quantity of "Solukress,"
which was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
of 1910.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "Phenol
Anfnln..4J A U' fl A Q AiIla hnrna nn 4-ha 1ohol Wnaa foloc ond yniclaoellnw


i






ts~


0
~W~c'i4cib~ 7i6T


[N. J., I. .


On June 9, 194Z a plEA of nolo ctendeer wantered and a fine of $100 was
imposed.
-GROVE B. H.L,
A8aismt a ecr tAry of Agricultsr.
s- '... ..> ...... .... .
1796. Misbranding of "Sna" 11. S, v. Mx Bew (Berg Manufacturing Co.).
Plea of galty. Pine, 5O and costsCT. & F. o. 2215. Sample No. 1843.-E4)
The label for this toduct bord unwarrked claims that it would act as an
effective insecticide against various insect nd that it was noanpoisonous. The
label did not bear the required ingredient Sttements.
On or about June 4, 1U41, the United Sta$ attorney for the Northern District
of Oklahoma, acting upon a report by the secretary of Agriculture, fied in the
district court an information against Max Berg, trading at Tulsa, Okla, under
the name of the Berg Manufacturing Co., alleging shipment in interstate com-"
merce on or about April 9, 1940, from Tulsa, .Okla., into the State of Neb f,
of a quantity of "Snak," which was a misbranded insecticide wiftin th
of the Insecticide Aet of 1910t -
The product was alleged to be tmisbranbd, in that the statements, "Snak A
Food Killer Sanitary Insect Card An all season product that instantly appeals
to the house wife. A itodern sanitary method of riddinj your home or place of
business of such gepm carrying insects as reaches, waterbugs, spiders, thousand
leggers, silverfish, crickets, beetles and bedbugs. This product will positively
attract the pests. The insect will eat the processed compound off the card, and
will wander back tq th ir den to die. Destrucetive powder is gone as soon as they
eat the compound. They disappear. It cremates them. No contamination to
foods, safe, sanitary, economical. No injury to child or pet .
DIRECTIONS Place cards on end where insects are prevalent Leave until black
compound is eaten bff. Positively do not use any powders or liquids while using
Snak, as this is a food killer," borne on the label, were false and misleading and
tended to deceive and mislead purchasers, since the product was not nonpoisonous
and would not rid the home or the place of business of insects, roaches, water
bugs, spiders, thousand leggers, silver fish, crickets, .beetles, or bedbugs, nor
would it cremate such insects. The product was alleged to be misbranded further,
in that it consisted partially of inert substances, namely, substances other than
phosphorous, and the name and percentage amount thereof were not stated
plainly and correctly or at all, on the label; nor in lieu thereof were the name
and the percentage amount of each and every substance or ingredient of the
article having insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of the 1nT
stances so present therein, stated plainly and: correctly, or at all, on the label.
On June 10, 1941, a plea of guilty was entered and the court imposed a fine of
0OVEand costs
Assistant Seeretary of Agrio-Iture.
1*Y M b d *n ZeW o
1797. Misbranding of Zenco Shampoo. U- L v. Juau H. Orovan and Herman E.
Orvan, partners trading as the eth Novelty Co. Plea of nolo con-
tenadee fey $SO, (1. & r No. 22 I. D. No. 394.)
The label for tis product did not bear thp equlred ingredient statement.
On April 4, 1iti, tie Ufited States attorey for the Southern District of
New York, acting upon a report by the St etaty of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an Information against Juliutf. Orovan and Herman E. Orovan,
co-partners trading at New Yort, N. Y., uder the name of the Zenith Novelty
Co., alleging shipment jn interstate commerce on or about April 13, 1940, from
xkTni. Vr-^Tt Wvn~ 4-. tn^ fli/T T ,S4.A nA n* 'flnL /^^^.^' L A~t n nc w 4.- 44^^-*^/.. raS^^ F^Ln nn C







1790-1800]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


523


7t8- Mishwanding of Harts Mountain Bird Wash. U. S. v. Gustav Stern and Max
Stern, co-partners, trading under the name of Hartz Mountain Products.
Verdict of guilty. Fine, $200. (I. & F. No. 2087. Sample No. 260S7-D.)
This product contained a larger percentage of inert ingredients than was


stated on
product, w
On July
New York
District Q
trading as
interstate


the label. The label
hen used as directed, w
20, 1939, the United
, acting upon a report
urt an information ag
Hartz Mountain Prodi
commerce, on or about


als(
would
Stat
by
ainst
ucts,
May


State of New Jersey, of a quantity of


misbranded


) bore un


warranted


statements


act as an effective insecticide
es attorney for the Southern
the Secretary of Agriculture,
Gustav Stern and Max Stern
at New York, N. Y., alleging
19, 1938, from New York, N.
Hartz Mountain Bird Wash,


insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of


The product was alleged to be misbranded in that th
* keep away lice. Directions Use Full Tablespoon
few days each month. As a spray, use one tablespoon t
borne on the label were false and misleading and tended
the purchaser, since the product, when used as direct
destroy, repel, or reduce lice on birds.
The product was alleged to be misbranded further
"Inert Ingredients 90.9%," borne on the label, was fa
tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the
inert ingredients in the proportion of not more than 90.9 p
larger amount thereof.
On July 23, 1941, a jury having returned a verdict of g
a ine of $200.


e s
in
o t
Ito
Led,


against lic
District
filed in tl
, co-pa rtne
shipment
Y., into t
which was
1910.


!e.
ol
he
rs
in
he
a


statements, "Helps to
bird's bath for every
vo ounces of water,"
deceive and mislead
would not prevent,


in that the statement,
Ise and misleading and
product did not contain
percent, but did contain a

guilty, the court imposed


G(OVnr B. HILL.,


Assistant Secretary of


Agricuuure.


1799. Adulteration and misbranding of Laundrex Bleach. U. S. v. 46 Pint Bottles,
298 quart bottles, and 59 half-gallon bottles, more or less, of Laundrex
Bleach. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
(I. & F. No. 2208. I. D. Nos. 1500, 1501.)
This product contained less sodium hypochlorite and more inert ingredients,


the pint and


stated on the 1
. when diluted a
of available ci
On February
Mexico, acting
court a libel pr


in pint, quart, and h
had been shipped iu
1940, and February 7
Tex., and charging th
within the meaning (
SThe product was
below the professed
"Active Ingredient S


half-gallon


bottles


contained


the product,


than


was


abel. The label also bore an unwarranted claim that the product
s directed would make a solution containing 200 parts per million
chlorine.
7 11, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
saying seizure and condemnation of a quantity of Laundrex Bleach


alf-gallon bottles, at Clovis, N. M., alleging that t
interstate commerce on or about February 8 and
, 1941, by the H. A. Marr Grocery Company, from
iat the product was an adulterated and misbranded
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
alleged to be adulterated, since its strength and p
standard and quality under which it was sold
odium Hypochlorite 5.25% Inert Ingredients 94.75


The product in all bottles was al
"Active Ingredient Sodium Hypoch
available chlorine solution of 200
ounce Laundrex to four gallons o
misleading and tended to deceive


I:.
'IF
Iii~:


leged to be misbra
lorite 5.25% Inert
parts per million
f water," borne oi
and mislead the p
fl nf-lflflflr i a 1 aci.V IAT


ended in that the st
Ingredients 94.75q
is prepared by a'
n the labels, was
purchaser, since th
4-lbnnv K OR r^^n..nnnl.


he article
October 3,
Amarillo,
fungicide

urity fell
I, namely,
%."
!atements,
S* *
adding one
false and
e product
onl ^A nn


m






524 INsCTICmnE ACT r

1800. Adulteration and misbranding of 33 Bleach Disinfectant Cleanser, 33 Drand
Bleach, and 33 Bleach. U. S. v. 95 Cases of "33 Bleach Disinfectant
Oleanser," 49 Cases of "33 Brand Bleach," and 76 Cases of W t
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (L & F.
No. 2224. I. D. Nos. 3313, 3314, 3315, 3316.)
It was represented on the labels of these products that they contained more
sodium hypochlorite and less inert ingredients than were actually ~
therein. i ::
On July 22, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Texas,
acting upon a report by the Secretary otAgriculture, filed in the District Court a
libel praying seizure and condemnation of 95 cases of "33 Bleach Disinfectant
S.... x xx x x. x xxxxxxx
Cleanser," 49 cases of "33 Brand Ble~ach," and 76 cases of "33 Bleach," at
Houston, Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce,
on or about March 16 and May 1, 1940, by the Beacon Chemical Corpr b i
Philadelphia, Pa.; and charging that the products were adulterated tkM
branded fungicides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910;
Each of the products was alleged to be adultered in that its strenth and
purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold,
namely, active ingredient-sodium hypochilorite 5.25 percent, inert ingredient
94.75 percent.
The 33 Bleach Disinfectant Cleanser and the 33 Brand Bleach, awe
to be misbranded in that the statements, "active ingredient-sodium hypochmrie
5.25%, inert ingredients 94.75%," borne on the respective labels, were false'nd
misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the products
contained sodium hypochlorite in a proportion less than 5.25 percent and they
contained inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 94.75 percent.
The 33 Bleach was alleged to be misbranded, in that the statemt i'A
Ingredient--Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by wt., Inert Ingredients 9
wt.," borne on the labels, were false and tended to deceive and mislead
chaser, since the product contained sodium hypochlorite in a proportion leSt han
5.25 percent, by weight, and contained inert ingredients in a proportiot t-
than 94.75 percent, by weight.
On August 28, 1941, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemdi M
forfeiture was entered and the products were ordered to be destroyed.
GAOVEr B.of l. ......
Assistant Secretary of Agricuiture.


t


tan.
















INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 1790-1800


Altman's Cresol Disinfectant:
Altman, R. S .-----...-
Irwin Chemical Co ---.-.
Altman's Hypochlorite Solution:
Ai tmian, R. S-- .- _-----


Irwi
Clor-A-Ster
Altu
Irwi
Hartz Moau
Harl
Ster;
Stern


n Chemical


Co_----_


n, R. S---------
Chemical Co-----
ain Bird Wash


N. J. No-.


- -- -
----


----


Mountain Products.----....
Gustav__.....------
Max-- -----------


Laundrex Bleach:
Ma.rr, H. A., Grocery Co.----
Louse Powder:
Altman, R. S-----
Irwin Chemical Co------
Perfection Lice Powder:
Rogers. I. B., Co-------
Pine Oil Disinfectant:
Sanitary Floor Compound Co__


Sheps


Plant Spray
Shepard. Anson L----
Shepard Laboratories_.


N.J.
- --
- -- -


Snak:
Berg Manufacturing Co
Berg, Max........
Solukress:
Kremers-Urban Co__---
Sterolube:
Mounger, Hayden ..--------
33 Bleach :
Beacon Chemical Corporation__
33 Bleach Disinfectant Cleanser:
Beacon Chemical Corporation_
33 Brand Bleach:
Beacon Chemical Corporation..


Zenco


Shampoo:
Orovan, Hermanr
Ororan, Julius
Zenith Novelty


i E
H-----------
Co --- ---


525




















~t4~ fr~


4-


4&


Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries with support from LYRASIS and the Sloari Foundation








































































































































































































































































I.




Hi -










Mt.,.:





4::
>1


UR O FOI


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
\ 111 I262 085U82I50ll MU 11Wllil
3 1262 08582 5049
^*^F I ----^ ^* ^P^^ K .4.K^^


ll

g .


* *