Issued February, 1943
* :^ '* : *-*'
F'OOD' tSTRIBUUTIO ADMINISTRATION
OF .JUDGM T .UNDER
OF JUDGMENT -UNDER
section 4 of the Inseeticide Aet]
Jt t assistant. Secretary of Agriculture,
* ...'- .I .
:.? ,'i..> .. -
Washington, D. C., January 7. 1943]
iiriJimg of bur-Imn Moth Trap." U. S. v. 390 Packages of."'Lur-Em
.f," axwDee of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. &
j .0, I. D. o, 3512.)
ttiatfniof a'sample of "Lur-Em Moth Trap" showed the product to
.pgce ..of woolen material impregnated with sodium fluoride and
5fee of folded cardboard.
*i4.041, the.United States attorney for the Southern District of
|:En- a report- by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
j.Oiataying seizure, and condemnation of 390 packages, more or less,
f.Moth. Trap," at Columbus, Ohio, alleging that the article had been
jiterstate commerce on or0. about March 24, 1941, by Peride Products,
D0oklyn, N. Y., and charging that the product was a misbranded
in ithe meaning of the: Insecticide Act of 1910.
.iwas alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements
.i leading, and by reason thereof the article was labeled so as
*.ikxislead purchasers, since the product would not lure and would
i Moth Trap *. Lur-em Directions:-Place 3 traps
#.e.re darkest, 1 at base, 1 at middle and 1 on top shelf, also
:under slip covers or wherever moths may frequent. Once
."DO NOT DISTURB for at least 2 mouths in warm room
^ ire- cool, then destroy and replace with new LUR-EM MOTH
...O For best results clothing should be free of moth life before
AfWAYS have LUR-EM MOTH TRAPS PLACED LAND READY
.JDSTROY ANY MOTHS THAT APPEAR,"
)i.."..LUR-em Moth Trap Lures and Destroys LUR-em Moth
.. .:,)fGRLESS DEATH TO MOTHS' LUR-em Moth Traps contain
"::.- ...*. .ODORLESS to us, but attracts moths from clothing to
eireggwin the traps which are treated to KILL the newly hatched
I .t attempt toaieat. With LUR-ems you actually SEE RESULTS.
* ** ^ ".*i.y* m s A^
FIJ21&STRENGTH for 3 months IN USE. We recommend replacing
SWa.months continuously as moths ARE ACTIVE ALL YEAR
apsa' (use ..,.umb tacks) in backs of closets and behind up-
e or: wherever moths are apt to frequent, as drawers, pianos
suon 3.traps in package. Used In Homes-Stores-Hotels *
S.t) "-'Be sure LUR-ems are placed in darkest areas. Do not
months. Lur-ems keep full strength for three months IN USE
e4d regularlyy throughout the year. 1*"
"- O9DORIESB, DEATH TO MOTHS LUR-em Moth traps con-
ACT PLt, ,
Moth Trap LURES AND DESTROYS LUR-em Moth Traps
SAVE your CLOTHES YEAR 'round Place in Closets-Trunks Pianos Uphol-
stered Furniture Under Slip Covers Or Wherever Moths May Be LEU-em Moth
Traps Lure And Destroy Moth Life Tell your customers: LUR-ems
MUST BE GOOD LEADING STORES USE THEM to PROTECT thbi --own mer-
chandise. LUR-ems ATTRACT MOTHS from CLOTHING, etc., (like' flies to
fly paper) and KILL the DESTRUCTIVE LARVAE. MOTHS ARE
ACTIVE ALL YEAR in all places (bathing suits, etc. damaged in winter months
]prove this.) LUR-em GIVE COMPLETE YEAR ROUND PROTECTION in
iclosets, chests, furniture, drawers, pianos, etc. (doors may be open or elosed)
LUU-ems KEEP FULL STRENGTH for 3 months IN USE. For best results
replace used traps every 3 months. Spring and Fall treatments ARE n.OT
? NOUGH, moths breed in between such infrequent attempts at so called moth-
proofing.- Your customers will be glad to learn of LUR-ems. &g ;a
box of 3 traps for every closet Be among the first to GET THIS4eW
BUSINESSS while at the same time GIVING YOUR CUSTOMERS REAL PAO-
1ICAL PROTECTION WHENEVER or WHEREVER MOTHS APPEAR.: Re-
mber with LUR-ems YOU SEE RESULTS. They cost less and last longer.
(Small leaflet) "LUR-em Moth Traps The Modern Odorless Method pr Be-
troyi ng Clothes Moths Used In Homes Hotels Stores Institutions *
Odorless LUR-em Moth as(HE SECRET OF LUR-em is a small wool-lined
trap, treated with a 'FOO-LRE whiq although ODORLESS to us, attracts
clothes moths away from clothing to this apparently SAFE place in which to
SQUEEZE ~ImE their eggs. A destroying element in the trap KILLS
whole families of unsuspecting, newly hatche arvae at their inception. *
The LURE used in the taes is a concentrated food which moths prefer more
haif aythlig else. Thie traps are scientifically designed to provide the com-
bination of requirees Imoths SEEK for their young. LUR-em has been put
t- many rigorous tests and found to give complete protection. It is now the
sale moth eradicator depended upon by many leading Department, Clothing Stores
anid hotels that ofrlerly spent hundreds of dollars yearly "trying" to protect
theifte wn expensive stocks, Unlike other moth preparations LUR-ems DO NOT
evaporate or spot. ey retain FULL STRENGTH for an entire THREE
MONTHS PERIOD OF USE. Closet doors may be left open or closed, RE-
MEMBER-4Moths are always active-LUR-em, and be SAFE. START TODAY-
tOU'LL Lfl tUR-ems-EVEN MOTHS LIKE LURemWR IU
LUR-ems THome, Hotels and Institutions' Pl-ce 3 traps in
Iat middle~ ad 1 on shelf, all wher~ darkest, behind uphiolstere urni
a cair 2 ona sofa) at ba ad sing in stock and blanket store e ..9roGns
in rear top corners of drawers, in pianos, or wherever mo bs may requem
~p artme-t Storei" Place traps about 6 to 8 feet apart along clothing racks a nd in'
OrDOrear Op ornesboof r~a e~rs indnoa i
tock rooms, in rafpconrofdwesndbins contain~ing o
iuse throughout furniture and rug departments will inpwQe agaF ninth A a.
(The ODORLESS feature of LUR-ems is a great asset to stores whose customers.
are apt to associate "mothproof" odors with last years merchandise.) .
On June 25, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed by the
United States Marshal.
Assistant Secretary of Agricu/tre.
18is Misilranding of "McKesson's Dry Insecticide." U. S.
Trastee of the Estate of McKesson & Robbins, Ine,
51.00 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2227. I. D. No. 2042.)
v. William J. Wardall,
Plea of guilty. FiTel.i.
. -. :- *.. ,* ..- ....
:, NOTICES OF
Ii! .. fhifl~. j~Yr~.rArx.
H. .,~. .
* I I
*1. H., I
.. .*. .1
H. .. I.
I plainly and
1942, the def
tdlng of Kal
)25. (1.& B.
properties, and the total percentage of the inert sub-
correctly,. orat all, on the label affixed to the packages
endant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed
GROVE B. HILL,
Assistant Seeretary of Agriculture.
plant U. S. v. Bryant NowHlin, trad ag as the Killaut
y. Plea of guilty entered to counts two and three.
lo. 2228. Sample No. 61067-D.)
samples of the product shows it to be a water solution of sodium
28,= 1941, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed an
t court against
going shipment i
1939, from Ft.
awn as "Killan
9 Insecticide Ac
ed in count twc
t Bryant Nowlin, trading as the Killa
n interstate commerce by said defendant
Worth, Tex., to New Orleans, La., of a
t" which was a misbranded insecticide
t of 1910.
Sof the information that the article was
on or about
percentum of metallic arsenic, was not stated on the label, and
the article contained arsenic in water-soluble form and the total
)f (expressed as percentum of metallic arsenic), was not stated on
count three that the article was misbranded further, in that
. and co
ty of in
y, or a
ert substances, substances
tage amount of the inert
t all, on the label affixed i
f, were the name and pern
lient of the article having
other than sodium arsenate,
substances were not stated
o the bottles containing the
centage amount of each and
insecticidal properties, and
of the inert, substances present therein, stated plainly and
, a plea of guilty was entered to the charges made in counts
unt one was dismissed. A fine of $25 was imposed.
GROVER B. HILL,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.
nail misbranding of "AU-Ne Pet Shampoo." U. S. v. AII-Nu
npany. Plea of guilty. Fine $100. (I. & F. No. 2232. I. D
g on the label affixed to the containers of this product indicated
tended for use as an insecticide to rid dogs of fleas and lice.
'.states attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, acting upon
ie Secretary of Agriculture, filed an .information against the All-Nu
tipany, a corporation, of Camden, N. J., alleging delivery for ship-
Iment in interstate commerce on or about February 19, 1941, from
L., to Tampa, Fla., of a quantity of "All-Nu Pet Shampoo," which
terated and, misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the
-t of 1910.
gpd that the article was adulterated, in that the statement, "Water,
5rne on the label affixed.to each of the bottles containing the article,
I renreSented that its standard and nality were sunch that it con-
1830. Adulteration and misbranding of "Koneen Coal Tar Disinfectant. :0, .f
v. Joseph Fuld and Melvin Fuld, co-partners trading as Fultd' Br i, rm.
Plea of guilty entered on count two. Counts one and three l4tamnfama.
Fine $10. (I. & F. No. 2233. I. D. Nos. 2174, 2175.) .
On October 17, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland,.
acting upon a report by the' Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
an information agatst Joseph Fuld and Melvin Fuld, partners trading
...^- .. ^. -......... ~ f'.... :-' *" < ^.: ^.co n t tw ih C ....- m e an -:|
Brthi 2 of Baltimore, Md, M nWgg in cotuit twoThe delivery fT si ma
shipment in interstate commerce, on or about January 17, 1941 from Baltimor
Md to he State of Georgia, of a quantify of "Koncen Coal Tar
which was an adulteratfed fungcide within the meaning of the. !""ida A ....A
It was alleged that the product was adulterated in that its strength and .pturity
!11 below the professM standard and purity under which it was sold, namely,
paper label oAn drum) "Contains not over 10% Inert Matter (water)". and
stnciled on dtXnm) "'nerts not over 10% Water," whereas the product contained
in zt matter (water) tea proportion greater than 10 percent.
On December 19, 1 a plea of guilty was entered to the charges contained
t count two. Counts one and three were dismissed. A fine of $10 was imposed.
GROVEr B. HIn,
Secretary of Agriculture.
184. Adualteration and mslbranding of "Compound Stock Chloroform." U. S.
v. First Texas Chemical Mfg. Co. Plea of nolo contender. lilne $150.
(I. & F. So. 2238' I. D. No. 1817.1
This product was sold as "Compound Stock Chloroform" followed by the
statement: "Differs from U3 S. P. Chloroform in that it is a compound made
from a commercial grade (not U. B. P.) of Chloroform intended only as an
insecticide," implying thereby that the product consisted of a commercial grade
of loroforn, whereas it consisted of approximately 50 percent chloroform
and 50 percent benzol
On December 15, 941, the United Stes attorney for the Northern District
of Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the First Texas Chemical Mfg. Co., a..
corporation, alleging delivery for shipiont and shipment in interstate com-
merce on or about May 20, 1841, from allas, Tex., to Texarkana, Ark., of a
quantity of "Compound Stock Chlorofor," which was an adulterated and mis-
branded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was *alleged to be adulterated, in that the statements, "Com-
pound Stock Chloroform Differs from U. S. P. Chloroform in that it is a com-
pound made from a commercial grade (not U. S. P.) of Chloroform," borne on
the label affixed to each of the cans containing the article, purported and rep-
resented that it consisted pf chiproform, whereas it did not consist of chloroform
but another substance, benzen as subs tuted, in part, for the article.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements quoted
above, borne on the label affixed to each of the cans containing the article,
were false and mis! ading, and by reatn of the iatemflat&
labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser beca-se the
statements purported ad represented that the article consisted solely of chloro-
form, whereas the article consisted of chloroform and benzene.
On February 17, 1942, a plea of noW contenders was enntee Ta acce
by the court A fine of $150 was imposed.
Secretary of Agriulture.
I Secretary of Agriculture.
tjl& an adulterated and misbi
ge cide Act of 1910.
ibkalleged that the product was
inta Sodium Fluoride 50% *
fit.s 44%," borne on the label a
, purported and represented tha
Lined sodium fluoride in a propo
r in a proportion of not less t
km of not more than 44 percent
* .-I-..ell below the i
abe article conta
J o)rbenzene in
'".' ms alleged fourth
bte dients, quoted
.le was labeled
."" 4s also alleged
.... bI roying an
H'" yies Germs and
.e ,Directions F
!i i:,: 'o pen the feat
l::.I feowls with the pow
~ er','shrould be us
f ,t nerous. Also
:baths, nests, roost
Eiig way as you
5. t.s will quick
filP""dg house and
ih'1.s and places
jflays and hiding
i;-N on the label
tined sodium flu
a proportion 1
the meaning of
adulterated, in that the statement, "Active
Paradichlorbenzene 1%, Inert In-
ifixed to each of the cans containing the
it its standard and quality were such that
rtion not less than 50 percent, paradichlor-
ban 1 'percent, and inert ingredients in a
nt, whereas the strength and purity of the
ard and quality under which it was sold,
ioride in a proportion less than 50 percent,
ess than 1 percent, and inert ingredients
than 44 percent.
er that the article was misbranded in that the statement
above, were false and misleading and by reason thereof
and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
that the product was misbranded in that the following
Poultry and Live Stock of Li
* Willson's Louse Powder *
Lice-Hold chicken by the feet,
hers in good shape to receive the powder.
s and on t
it in their feathers
ly around the ven
:he floor. *
roughly with the
[hen use both hands
mne instructions fo
y disappear if Wi
hair and well rul
on the ground r
which they inhabit
rtlnnnfl S "
t, as th
ere the lice
Itry house, it
on Horses, C
r use on calves and colts. Fleas on Dogs
llson's Louse Powder is sprinkled thor-
'bed into the skin. Scatter powder in
around it. Ants-Sprinkle the powder
. Cockroaches-Sprinkle the powder in
se and misleading and by reason of the statements
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that the statements
presented that the article, when used as directed, would destroy
trol lice, fleas, ants, cockroaches, and all verminous insects,
* are found
each of thE
reason of ti
to be misbranded further in
upon the body of your poultry
in cracks nnd crevices during t
e cans containing the article,
e statement the article was
that the statement.
during the night and
he day," borne on the
was false and mis-
labeled and branded
iteas to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the statement
. .ented that chicken lice leave the. poultry and secrete
iM and crevices during the day, whereas in fact they do not.
rnMareb.h 9, 1942, a plea of guilty was entered. A fine
wwtee'counts was imposed, "payment of fine on one count to s
.."^" .-* GROVER
.T .,. Assistant Secretary of
f $50 on each
B. 3U 4. 8 a a a a a a i aU fl~. len ..Ia fl7 A a fla a fi naSIa S. t~ a -
K>, ;t73 (N. J*qkJ~~P*
stroyer," which was an adulterated and misbranded ins
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was ae he r"le was adulterated in that thi
BeSUins aIgf e enotainng 2.25t," borne on
each of 4 packages ontabiehe article, purported and
standur4 a4d quality" w e that it contained derris resi
of notIsw sthan 2&25 percent, whereas the strength and p
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it
truth and. infact the article contained derris resins in a r
The product was alleged Xhe ndnbran d in that the stall
label affixed to the package contaii-g article, quoted a
misleading and by reason of the statemelt the article was l
so as to dceive and mislead the prhas
The product was alleged to be misb ded further in t
'"Huber's Wonder Garden PestyDestroyer *
Ad Applied With A .Ppwder mister," rne on the label
the packages containing the article, wer false and mislea
oftthe statements the article waslabeled and branded so as to
the purchaser, since, when used as directed, it would not
On October 14, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of gu
on each of four counts, plus $10 costs, was imposed.
e tat'ement. "Derris
the label affixed to
represented that its
ns in the proportion
urity of the article
was sold, in that in
roportion less than
cement borne on the
above, was false and
labeled and branded
bat the statements,
* To be Used Dry
affixed to each of
ding and by reason
deceive and mislead
destroy all garden
A fine of $25
Gnover B. Hur.,
Secretary of Agriculture.
1834. Misbranding of "Keene's Chigger Lotion, U. S. v. First Texas Chemineal
Mlfg. Co. Plea of nolo contendete. Ine $100. (I. & F. No. 2249. I. D.
An analysis of this product showed that it contained 88.2 percent of water.
On December 15, 1941, the United States attorney for t
Texas acting upon a report by the Secretry of Agricul
court an information charging the defendant, First Tex
corporation, with having delivered for shipment and sh
merce on or about July 3, 1940, from Dallis, Tex.,
quantity of an article known as "Keenes Chigger Lot
branded insecticide within the meaning o the In sectici
It was charged that the article cons ted, partially
(water) and the name and percentage amIont of the i
stated plainly and correctly, or at all, ?i the label that
the bottles containing the article nor, in lieu thereof,
centage amount of each and every substa ce or ingredie
insecticidal properties, and the total perch ntage of the
therein, stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the lab
On February 17, 1942, a p1ea of nolo contender wa
by the court. A fine of $100 was imposed
he Northern District of
ture filed in the district
as Chemical Mfg. Co., a
ipped in interstate corn-
to Texarkana, Ark., a
ion," which was a mis-
Je Act of 1910.
, of an inert substance
nert substance were not
: was affixed to each of'
rere the name and per-
,nt of the article having
inert substances present
is entered and accepted
GROVR B. H2ILL,
retary of Agriculture.
1835. Misbranding of 0Kennel Health Specially-Processed 1Red
v. rem O. Finner. Plea of nolo contender. Fine $10. (I. & F. No. 2251.
I. D. No. 2951.)
The product consisted entirely of inert ingredients
the net weight of the contents of the bagd was less t
On January 15, 1942, the United States attorney
as a repellent of
ban stated on the
for the Eastern D
1, ,,,pt\ gj ^,, ,
fS. :. *Hj .
" *., "* ,
N !:::: ...'.: .. *: .
01.. ] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 549M
........es were not stated plainly and correctly on the packages containing
..K, ~y 1'"8, 1942, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contender. A fine of
i ^ l-S'"' of costs was imposed by the court.
... .-- -' GROVER B. HIL.T
H .c:...- Asaistant Secretary of Agriculture.
:.!. : aeration and misbranding of."A C C Disinfectant." U. S. v. Atlantic
"...". ...,Cemca.Company, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine $25 on each of two counts.
.,:. ;,=f.H k I. & F. No. 2256. I. D. No. 2647.)
J 9i1i| ril. 7, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New
I-r. ig upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed an information
hI'.district court, ci
ery for shipment ar
iot.f a.quantity of at
..into.the State of P
1e article was a fu
i. g^f the Insectic
i**. (water), n
. J containing t
qfiy= were such
ortioni of not mor
4e article fell belo
;I old, because the
flrun -greater than
b same facts were
B btement on the lab
S.'the article was
|rApril 28, 1942, th
S-1aplea of guilty.
the Atlantic Chemical Company, Inc., with the
ient in interstate commerce on or about August 5,
known as "A C C Disinfectant," from Brooklyn,
rngicide and was alleged
ide Act of 1910, in that t
ot over 10%," borne on
he article, purported and
that it contained an ine
e than 10 percent, where
w the professed standard
e label affixed
resented that i
id quality und4
article contained an inert ingredient (water
alleged as a basis for a charge of misbranding,
el, quoted above, was false and misleading and by reason
labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the
defendant withdrew its prior plea of not guilty
A fine of $25 on each of two counts was imposed.
.~E .^. .
, ~.. .
-' GROVER B. HBLL;
Assaistant Secretary of Agriculture.
Misbranding of "Barfoot Fungicide." UI. S. v. Jerry A. Barefoot, trading as
J. A. Barefoot & Company. Plea of nolo eontendere as to count one.
Fine $100. (I. & F. No. 2263. Sample No. 83577-D, I. D. Nos. 810, 1104.)
tfJ ^ 4. .. .... *'
twa es and
., The Unite
upgo a repoz
ng made unwarranted representations regarding the effectiveness of
against powdery mildew on grapes and roses and leaf curl on
nectarines, and also as a dormant treatment for leaf curl on trees
d States attorney for the Southern District of California, acting
t by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed an information in the district
it Jerry A. Barefoot, trading as J. A. Barfoot and Company, alleging
e interstate shipment by him on or about January 30, 1940, from
, Calif., to Portland, Oreg., of a quantity of an article known as
ingicide," which was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning
Insecticide Act of 1910.
S.Tn"h, product was alleged to be misbranded, in that
.ti. label affixed to the bottles containing the article,
:ap4d, deceived.and misled the purchaser, because they j
t.t the article, when used as directed, was an effect
IC l...fungicide and an effective aid for the control
p~cdAed in the statement, "For Powdery Mildew
the statements borne on
vere false and misleading
purported and represented
ive, efficient, and econom-
of certain plant diseases
on Roses. For Powdery
Adulteration and misbranding of "33 Bleach Disinfeetant Cleanmer. .U.
ve 75 eases, more or less, of "33 Bleach Disinfectant Cleanser." Default
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2270.
I TNo. 3477.)
This product contained a smaller proportion of calcium bypochlorite and
a larger proportions inert ingredients than declared on the label.
On April 25, 1942, the UniMte States attorney for the Western District of
Tennessee, acting uIpon a refrt by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seizure arid condemnation of 75 cases, more or
less, of "33 Bleach Disinfectant CleanseR" at Memphis, Tenn., alleging that
the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about July 7, 1941,
by the Beacon Chemical Company, fromJhicago, I1., and charging that the
product was an adulterated and maisbran ed fungicide with
the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulte in that its str
fell below the professed standard and quality under which' i
it was labeled "Active Ingredients SodiEm Hypochlorite 5
Inert Ingredients 94.75%," whereas it dntained less than
calcium hypochlorite, and more than 94X5 percent of iner
The article was alleged to be misbra ded in that the s
above, borne on the label affixed to the bottles containing
false and misleading and by reason of he said statement
so as to deceive and mislead the purchase.
On May 27, 1942, no claimant having appeared, a judgment
and forfeiture was entered by the court, and the product
stroyed by the United States Marshal.
i the meaning of
length and purity
t was sold, since
.25% By Weight
5.25 percent of
the article, were
s it was labeled
was ordered de-
GOVEn B. THTa
Ausistant Secretary of Agriculture.
Misbranding of "Standard Floor Sham-Poo." U. S. v. Two 15-galle
drums, more or less, of "Standard Floor Sham-Poo." Default decree of
condemnation, and forfeiture was entered and the prod nuet was released
to St. Ezliabeths Hospital. (I. & D. 1. 2274. I. D. No. 3259.)
Examination of the article showed that it consisted of woody material im-
pregnated with fatty oil, mineral oil, coloring matter, and a very small amount
of phenolic bodies, but that it was not a )Jisiifectant and would not disinfect
On June 10, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, acting
on a report of the Secretary of Agrieulture, filed a libel in the district court pray-
ing seizure and condemnation of two 15-ga- on drums of "Standard Floor Sham-
Poo" that The Standard Brush & Broomp Cd., Inc., had shipped in interstate com-
merce on or about February 16, 1942, frm Portland, Ind., to the District of
It was alleged that the article was a ngicide and was misbranded within
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 19 in that the statements, "Standard
Floor Sham-Poo a dry Cleaning Material Ceans, Polishes and Disinfects in One
Operation," borne on the label affixed to tle drums containing the article, were.
false and misleading and by reason there the article was labeled and branded
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser because the statements purported and
represented that the article was a disinfectant, whereas it was not a disinfectant
and would riot disinfect floors.
The product was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted entirely
of inert ingredients or substances which do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
fungi, and the label did not bear the names and percentage amounts of each and
every one of such inert ingredients plainly and correctly stated thereon.
On June 26, 1942, no claimant having appeared, a judgment of condemnation
gv.. .. .
I. N "
. : ,
'' *.; "
4.:irict court an information against
.hladelthia, Pa., alleging shipment in i
ff4 1841, from Philadelphia, Pa., to the
,liinfectant," which was an adulterat
waning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
i.:'he product was alleged to be adult
Blredients Pine Oil 60% Soap 10%,
.ffid to the bottles containing the art
.ols-were substituted for pine oil.
S h product was alleged to be misb
The Mabex Company, a corporation, of
interstate commerce, on or about December
State of Florida, of a quantity of "Pine
ed and misbranded fungicide within the
Iterated in that the statements, "Active
Inert Matter 30%," borne on the label
:icle, were false, in that other pine wood
. the label quoted above, were false and misleading to the purchaser since the
Product was represented as containing pine oil in a proportion of not less than
S.60 percent and soap in a proportion of not less than 10 percent, but in fact con-
Ssisated of soap in a proportion less than 10 percent and did not contain pine oil
..but contained lower boiling pine wood oils. And it was alleged that the product
.~ was misbranded further, in that the statements, "Pine Disinfectant For general
.cleaning purposes, toilets, refuse cans, use one part to twenty parts warm water.
I Go-efficient 3," borne on the label that was affixed to the bottles which contained
the product purported and represented that the product has a phenol coefficient
of 3 and was an effective disinfectant when added to 20 parts of water, but in
, fact the article had a coefficient of less than 3 and was not a disinfectant when
Sodded to 20 parts of water.
.On September 29, 1942, a plea of nolo contender was entered. Verdict of guilty.
line of $100 was imposed.
GROVER B. HILL,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.
INDEX TO NOTICES OF
N. J. No.
A C C Disinfectant:
Atlantic Chemical Company, Inc--
All-Nu Pet Shampoo:
All-Nu Products Company----
Barfoot, J. A--------------
.Barfoot & Company. J. A-_ -
. Compound Stock Chloroform :
First Texas Chemical Mfg. Co---
Huber's Wonder Bean Beetle & Garden
Huber Seed Company-------
Keene's Chigger Lotion:
First Texas Chemical Mfg. Co --
Kennel Health Specially-Processed Red
tnney, Tom 0_--------
Killant Chemical Company-----
Nowlin, Bryant-- --.-----------
N. J. No.
Koncin Coal Tar Disinfectant:
-uld Brothers ------------- 1830
Fuld Joseph, and Fuld, Melvin. 1830
Lur-Em Moth Trap:
Peride Products. Inc------ 1826
McKesson's Dry Insecticide:
Wardall. William J., trustee of the
Estate of McKesson & Robbins, Inc_ 1827
The Mabex Company---------.. 1840
Standard Floor Sham-Poo:
The Standard Brush & Broom Co.,
33 Bleach Disinfectant Cleanser:
Beacon Chemical Company------ 1838
Willson's Louse Powder:
Willson Monarch Laboratories,
Inc .. ...... --------------- 1832
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
I I I l fli ll lllll lll llll i llllll lllllll
3 1262 08582 5064
A ..1. :
.. : k:.........
.. .. .*.
4 < :*" "*.. *, 'r"::
*. .. ".:.*...4 .* :*H 9 *
S.. '4 ...:
... :* ..
.. :,' :.', ...:" .
...*.. .... .
...: .. "::.* .
: .. ..
: ..: *: ... H
.. ".. c:.
*. .E. ia
z K *: ." .::
: ........ ... .
,.. a .'
*J .hI. **...
..* P .. .
....... ...: 71.. e
.4 .~' .
::? ...r4.!j::.~ .. *
A *I*. -4... ...
4H$*~ H!:.::jr~. ~
IHI. *~ *-.
.H ::H~g~j1 .. 4
*. I. -
.* .1 1
* I. I ~
\ .. i' '