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:
AA00008549:00041

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text









culure


~r


14k!


4IE :D ADI
"m*]*"i*.. p ** .. ". :
wdutBDISTRIBUTION


.. .
.* ...... ..
ii::. "*:i1r i *
,,W JUDOENT UNE
t** ** .
:i -': ;:,. :. -









fitt!? *\ '- s.
S" .. 184.1--


jj ju ee.t herewith rel
H urts ,and are approved.:

I. ~!et of 19,0 (86 Stat. a
H : ..... :.. .
..*.

.. ** t *:** :


&... .... |.
.. *B--.i ," : ;
h1:W.lnt.M'
. ..**....
:.. *.,. ? : :

m : ': a
t"
tti. '


sT* *A.O .N ..
.. i* .,

[N:iSTRATION


IM IN 1ST RAT ION


THE


te to cases instituted


publication as provided


'3m


in the United


in section


IA a


Acflng War Food Administrator.


vstigdns ef "Satv.ay Wash." U. S. v. 150 eases of
.". .M:Ure: e. at condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
WP,6.. N.o, 3N8880.) .
At? i a...ayy Wash" showed the sodium hypoehlorite content to
S.atton :the label., The label also bore unwarranted claims
.i.;ut ed asdirected, would make a absolution containing 200
n. of available chlorine. -
ISd4Z the United 1atea~-attoprney .for the Western District of
nw aupon ,a report Ih th& Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
.. ptaring seizr. and pndempation. eaf .I0 cases, more or less,
pt t Madison, Wa,. algingrthat the. product had been shipped
ie,.. an or ahiTNov be1924, 19&, by the Barton Chemical
i-l, antcgvin that the product was an adulterated and
withinhn th mean of the Insectielde Act of 19190.
godied.to he, adulter^ i:, that its Astrength and purity fell
b.eu. standard and qua Jy under which it was sod, namely,
a Mw .rl.ypoehlori 5% by Wlt., Inert Ingredients. 95%
*1 '"eg"""o"Active
.lleJedeto ihe .isb ded in that the statements, "Active
Athbith3^ b WtW.1ta!ett Ingredients 9%; by Wt,"
".Ia Cnd .... 5 i A r _


INSECTICIDE ACT


* 1


5L L




,.v.. *. :. ":

554 INSECTICIDE AC .. 0. :.,.".
: ~~1 .. *...** *.
1842. Misbranding of "Speelal Fomnula Flea Powder Justrite No. 1023.. ...,
v. 5 barrels, more or less, of "Special Formula Flea Powder JutA .flrnt::$ :
1023." Decree of condemnation. Product relabeled and release '.: ,, ....
bond. (I. & F. No. 2272. 1. D. No. 2435.) :. .. .
Examination of "Special Formula Flea Powder Justrite No. 1023" sowt :
this product consisted of derris powder and siliceous material. i a 44: .
On May 12, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western Distriot.g .
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in th M
court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 5 barrels of "Specialrni. ";.
Flea Powder Justrite No. 1023" at Rochester, N. Y., alleging that the produce *
been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December 20, 1941, by S.B.. P. en
and Company from Jersey City, N. J., and charging that the product . branded within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The prdpu
alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of inert substanaE x:" :.:
substances other than derris resins which would not prevent, destroy, '' ::
zMitigate insects, and the label did not bear a statement of the name andt .Sl
age amount of each and every one of such inert substances, nor, in lieu thereof n"e. .
the name and percentage amount of each and every ingredient of the prodi-c :
ing insecticidal properties and the total percentage of the inert ingredients st l- <. ..
plainly and correctly on the label. -:.. -.':;-::-
On November 25, 1942, the court entered a decree of forfeiture and cond.hii .
tion but ordered that the product be released to the claimant, S. B. Peni* t .|
Company, upon the furnishing of a sufficient bond in the amount of $500,8dan .a tU
it be relabeled "Special Formula" and the ingredients stated correctly -on- thq1 A
la b el. S": H *4
*'s x :. .h f : "
1843. Adulteration and misbranding of "Do-Ro Klean-New." U. S. v. I1S'C s'C..-,* .V
of "Bo-Ro Klean-New." Default decree of condemnation, fotd t::.t .
and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2268. I. D. No. 4469.) .. ..:.:: .. .....:.
On April 8, 1942, the United States attorney for the District of Connect ,lg .
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District' cIAt
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 175 cases, each containing f1 .gKl?:
quart bottles, of "Bo-Ro Klean-New," at Stamford, Conn., alleging that:1....
product had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 24,I4I.., ..
and February 24, 1942, by the Boro Products Sales Corporation, from New~ .:. (.
N. Y., to Stamford, Conn., and charging that the product was an adulterutet.pY
misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910, ... '.. 4
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength or nity I .., A
below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold, namel.?gr."
Ingredients 5.25% by weight, Inert Ingredients 94.75% by weight." Anryt ld H:"
"Bo-Ro Klean-New" showed the active inredient (sodium ohoclorite o "1
product to be less than 3 percent. .,.,
The product was alleged to be misbtanded in that the statements, -.'*A nna;.
gredients 5.25% by weight, Inert Ingredients 94.75% by weight," borns **. ..:..'
label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the t :. ;.
since the product contained an active ingredient in a proportion less tha..slli:
percent, and inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 94.75 percent.' -:
The product was alleged to be misbranded further in that the name of their taS
ingredient, sodium hypochlorite, was not stated on the label, nor, in lieu .:.
were the name and percentage amount of each and every inert ingredient,., ,,.|t
therein stated on the label. 5 :"
On August 5, 1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnationle t': ,
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed, -. 3 '
r- rewa ete and-wsSrfp e e r..l...."..
., .., ..., ,' i ;
.............................. J. ..: .,:. :. ,,:. ":MJ %;:. -.


1844. Hisbranding of


drumn
.n Safl,


"Cain


Californla


White Pine."


U. 5.


v. one


of "Caleo California White Pine." Default decree of condeu:i
6.-- a--2 .a-4a-- A -- IT .Lt dl TMa CDAO T T i n. R41A \ .. :.- /-*.*-.: =:







I:.
'rIb *
iiMa 1uQs1~ai
H ~ A
~ .


frTO2WES


JUDGMENT


oaq


"ithe smca ar, si e product was not California White
: *" 'Iy I *
r.,,th *p?? e 'a,. ^r .si c w as^ **:*' *.
a.l.ged t"e m'isbran d further in that it1'consisted partially
Ce (water) and the na e and percentage amount of the inert
was .x.T stated on the tbel, nor, in lien threof, were the name
oat ef each and ever ingredient having fungicidal (bacteri-
a4,the total percentage amount of the inert ingredient plainly
Son the label.
1942, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
entered, and it was ordered "that the product be destroyed.


*ding of "Genuine Glassine 1he Original Combination Cleanser and
iptijdle.'e U. S. v. Charles PI Newberry and Irma A. Newberry, co-
aers,:. trading as the New Chemical Company. Plea of guilty. Fine
..:$f00 imposed on Charles P. dewberry .and a fine of $100 imposed
*rtila A lNewberry. (I. & F. No.2210. I. D. No. 86.)
cet consisted of a powder an.d a liquid. Analyses showed that the
tmied inert ingredients, particularly sodium chloride, and the liquid
.nredients other than sodium.hypochlorite, which were inert ingredi-
b.s failed to bear the required ingredient statements. The product,
i'Wirected, would not act as a;.,bactericide or sterilize drinking glasses,
ion the labels.
1,s-44,41' the United States attorney for the Eastern District of M/ch-
g..DlponD a report by the Secretary of, Agriculture, filed in the district
,. ijormation against Charles P. Newberry and Irma A. Newberry, co-
qa|ai .tg as ,the New Chemical Company at Detroit, Mich., alleging
citerstate commerce,. on or about April 13, 1940, from Detroit, Mich.,
.Ohio, of a quantity of "Genutine GTassine The Original Combination
gf BaCtericide," which was a misbranded fungicide within the mean-
.,s. ticide Act of 1910.
Sldict was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Cleanser
g p ide, *..*- No. 1 Genuine Glassine (The Original Combination)
I ,qeanspr arid Bactericide Powdler. Its active Bactericide is Sodium
r4I Phenate, which is stable, soluble in water, odorless, tasteless and
eol.Gaeeffiiency of 21. It is consideredd by health authorities e.very-
ibretive Bactericide. (Lhboratory reports on request). *' Di-
L -aph ing Glsses Fill one tank with warm water. Add 1 tablespoonful
assi eNo. 1, powder to the gallon. Wash glass in this solution with
.thse immediately and thoroughly in clean cold water. Sterilizing


.* e4rn othte label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and
.purchaser, since the product, when used as directed, would not act
efde and would not sterilize glasses.
;t was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially
.sibsthnce. (sodium chloride and the name and percentage amount
(i&.,and percentage amount of each ingredient having fungiddal
fpitroperties and the total percentage amount of the inert ingredient
i i correctly on the label.
designated d "No. 2 Geuuae Glassine Liquid Bactericide" was al-
|ini^sbtanded inthat it consisted partially of inert substances (sub-
Atgar sodium hypochlbrite and the name and percentage amount
fad'.bsatidee were not stated :plainly and correctly on the label, nor,
htter.f,. were the name and percentage amount of each ingredient having
IU2 tericidal,) properties. aixl the total percentage amount of the
^;*'hTJ5..?J ^>-A---I 1 S _1A /.^B-^a*- --1 a 4 n1 l.l ^


N


#






556


INSECTIOIDE


On August 29, 1941, the United States attorney for the Eastern Distttkr!
Kentucky, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in theji1 :
court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 606, more or less, 3.'
bottles of "DAG Deodorant Antiseptic Germicide," at Ashland, Ky., allUgi -|
the product had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 19_7^ l
by the Keller Products Company, from Columbus, Ohio, and charging 'tb."
product was an adulterated and misbtranded fungicide within the meanfi4 t.l
Insecticide Act of 1910. :-, .. :::.
The product was alleged to be adultered in that its strength and'&r"hi
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, nam .i."j4^ :jI
ingredients 95%, Sodium Hypochlorite 5% Wgt." H.:
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, Iict -
gredients 95%, Sodium Hypochlorite 5% by Wgt.," borne on the l4!eXf:; $I
false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser :sinc
product contained sodium hypochlorite in a proportion less than 5 percent. ., j
inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 95 percent. ':.''^
The product was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statedM '0
"* Germicide CLEANING, DISINFECTING, DFTb"
ING---Porcelain, tile, marble, enamel ware, china, crockery, refrigerated ,,
colators, teapots, baking dishes, casseroles, glassware, windows, woodwork, pn d ,
or unpainted, pantry and cooler shelves, bread and cake boxes. Use 2t.tt^ .
spoonsful of DAG to each quart of lukewarm water, rinse and dry. .-*.-i:
DRAIN PIPES, *-Flush with a kettle full of boiling water;"! .li
with a cupful of DAG; allow to stand for a few minutes, then rinse with watk*: .
borne on thelabel, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and...if*l./.
the purchaser, since the product, when used as directed would not act as a* ?
cide and would not disinfect porcelain, tile, marble, enamelware, China, eroc0i: .".
refrigerators, percolators, teapots, baking dishes, casseroles, glassware, wiha.'.
woodwork painted or unpainted, pantry and cooler shelves, bread and caebt. :.
or drain pipes. ,:.: .',:, :
On September 19, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of con:"i^Iv'.
tion and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be desto l~g,..r
.....,.y, .4..
1847. Adulteration and misbranding of "Speelal Rotenone-Lead Arweu..:' -
Sulfur Dust." U. S. v. Mieronizer Processing Company, Inc-. Pli 'i"T, .
guilty. Fine $40. (I. & F. No. 2235. I. D. No. 576.) .. .-
An analysis of "Special Rotenone-Lead Arsenate-Sulfur Dust" showed .
this product contained less lead arsenate than was stated on the label, and :
in anf ln +n t b n. tn tnnnc n thi tnnndnn nS f tn l nq.A ..s'


IdUCuL iaL.11u
arsenic and
On Octobe
acting upon
an informat


Lu cal OtsLLLIaIztn UL L1e pCs tA Le1 er
the required ingredient statement.
r 17, 1941, the United States attorney
a report by the Secretary of Agricul
ion against the Micronizer Processin


eCs oi toLaL tLnu watuLe-rUm|jp

for the District of New IJ
ture, filed in the district C..
g Company, Inc., Moorlt .


N. J., alleging shipment in interstate commerce, on or about July 12, 1940
the city of Moorestown, State of New Jersey, to the city of Fitchburg, Coi
wealth of Massachusetts, of a quantity of "Special Rotenone-Lead Arse
Sulfur Dust," which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide and
cide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and' pnu
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, namely,


It
.1
t..
1.~
- n.j
I
F...
S *.
- .
I-.
V
*1


Rotenone 20 Lead Arsenate 65 sulfur," and it contained lead arsentf n' nTt
propvtion much less than 20 percent 'i 1 i
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "20 Ik*" -
Arsenate," borne on the label, was false and misleading and tended toh Gec ::






JUDGMENT


.* ." .

o. rndtmisbrandsa_ qf't ,a bow Super-Refined Bl
:./'slaqt.-Su crv. S 3 leach, h h containing 24 onmpli
Super-]e HBeach ..ne tifInfeetant." ,.Dfela
*aadeinuatIn, fortpere, and estruetion. (I. & V. No.
Si ainbow. .priper-RefBlned lnea and Disinfetant"
Scontampd l..ss sodium hyp bhlorite than was stated
.ttle contained less than one p. t of the product-the qu
.tqd.,' States attorney for the Nbrthern District of Texas,
by .t' Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a
condemnation of 138 cases, more or less, each contain
of 'Tiainbowv Super-Refined Bleach and Disinfectant
g'that the product had been hipped in interstate comic
..tAprul 18, 1941, and in part o' or about June 10, 1941, b
ompa.iny from Philadelphia, a., and charging that the
ted and misbranded fungicide within the meaning of ti


.5~7


each and Dis-
mt bottle tof
ult decree of
2241. I.. D.
showed that
on the label,
antity stated

Acting upon
libel praying
dining 24 one-
'," at Dallas,
nerce in part
y the Naylee
product was
ie Insecticide


d.
.uct was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
professed standard and quality under which it was sold, namely,
gredient, Sodium Hypochlorite,. 5% by Wt. Inert Ingredients .


et was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "A
6o.dium Hypochlorite 5i by Wt. Inert Ingredients .
e." on the label, were false anid misleading and tended to deceive
purchaser, since the product contained an active ingredient, to
chlorite, in a proportion less than 5 percent by weight and
1 a proportion more than 95 percent by weight.


inert was alleged to be m
. Contents One Pint," borne
td. todeceive and mislead the
iMoItined less. than qne pint
txbd'r 1, 1941, no claimant
ltfeiture was entered, and it


isbranded further in
oin the label, was
purchaser, since the 1
thereof.
having appeared, ju


active
95%
and
wit,
inert


that the statement,
false and misleading
bottles containing the

Pigment of condemna-


was ordered that the product be destroyed.


nation and misbranding of'iHexol.",
tof g llty. Fine $5.. (I. & F. No. 2236.


ai. H3iW of "Hexol" showed that .this product
I water than was stated on the label.
tember 29, 19,41, the United States attorney f
*ron' a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
tmiatlbn against Hexol, Incorporated, alleging
ittisn or about March 28, 1941, from the c
Wto thb city of Stokane, State of Washington,
Iwas an adulterated and misbranded fungicid
ttide Act of 1910. ,
srigEwt was alleged to be adulterated in that i


U. S. v. l Hexol, Inecrporated.
I. D. No. 2290.)


consisted


of a larger per-


or the District of Oregon,
filed in the district court
ig shipment in interstate
ity of Portland, State of
of a quantity of "Hexol,"
e within the meaning of

ts strength and purity fell


me isi.


professed standard and quality under which it was sold, namely,
"Ifatter (Water) 19%." ,i
4 todute w.s alleged to be misltanded in that the statement, namely,
IMatter (Water) 13%," borne on the label, was false and misleading
.Btted tos.deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the product contained
matter (water) in a proportion giater than 13 percent.
"fi. anuary 7, 1942, a plea of guilty was entered and the court imposed a
L$8:C A


,I .O0


**HK


** ll ll




' .. .. di ^"*""* ...c*. ..


558


INSECTIOIDE


N

H


AOT:r


Coastal Chemical Company, from Savannah, Ga., and charging that t ;'A
was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the meaning ..
Insecticide Act of 1910. : .
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and!
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, t
"Active Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt. Inert 94.75%."' ".
Misbranding of the product was alleged in that the statements, ..
Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt. Inert 94.75%," born o
label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead theb tca
since the product contained sodium hypochlorite in a proportion *..
5.25 percent by weight and inert ingredients in a proportion gtea1...r
94.75 percent by weight. .. .,..=.
The product was alleged to be misbranded further in that the $tatenq


I.
t
A...,
* ..
*1'.3
~.
p..
9* LIt'
* -
* ** .1
.1
H:.
'.3;
I. .~


"To prepare
1 oz. Clo-W
is valuable
taverns, rest
hypochlorite
be made as
borne on the


a soluti
white to
in disil
aurants,
solution
follows


on contai
each gall
nfecti ng
dairies,
with dis
: Add on


ning
on of
surfa
soda
infect
e par


label, were false and


the purchaser, since the product
give a solution containing 200 pa
the solution prepared as directed
and, further, the product, when di
ten parts of cold water, would not


200 parts per million available chlorine,
water-mix well. This strength of 804k
ces that have been thoroughly celtc.
fountains, bar rooms, etc." and '"A s0o
ing qualities, equal to a Dakin's solutlonkE
t of Clo-White to ten parts of cold W4tl
misleading and tended to deceive and iMi.
diluted with water as directed wolldt.
rts per million of "available chlorine".-
would not disinfect the places destat
luted by adding one part of "Clo-White:.
wive a solution having disinfecting. nati


equal to a Dakin's solution. .::'
On February 4, 1943, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condetn iti
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destrozed
1851. Adulteration and misbranding of "Nicotine Dast No. 10." fU. v.'* 5n
S -- .a S- n au


eacn containing Z4 one-pou
fault decree of condemnation
2271. I. D. No. 4256.)
An analysis of "Nicotine Dust
contain nicotine as stated on the 1:
rotenone-bearing organic material.
On May 13, 1942, the United Stat
upon a report by the Secretary of
praying seizure and condemnation E
24 one-pound cartons of "Nicotine
been shipped in interstate commit
Sherwin-Williams Co., from Oaklar
an adulterated and misbranded insf
Act of 1910.
Adulteration of the product was
to wit, "ACTIVE INGREDIENT
INGREDIENTS 96%," borne c
tained 4 percent of nicotine alkalc
bearing organic material had been
dust).
Misbranding of the product was
"NICOTINE DUST NO. 10" and
* 4%," borne on the label, wern
and mislead the purchaser, since tl


ns carnons, o0 "*icothne uUst Uo. 1"0.iJ. ..
Ion, forfeiture, and destruction. (L.&1,N6, .
." -' : "
No. 10" showed that this product did". _14:.
abel, but consisted of siliceous t'materialfi&.... '
:"' :.
es attorney for the District of Oregon, :aottj!. "
Agriculture, filed in the district court a ,lidb.e
it Portland, Oreg., of 5 cases, each contaf.ig ',
Dust No. 10," alleging that the product .a. .
erce on or about August 14, 1941, .by ..
id, Calif., and charging that the product w.C.
ecticide within the meaning of the Inseetiejff.. 4

alleged for the reason that the statement .
: Nicotine alkaloid 4%" and ."INwE. .i.
on the label, represented that the product :ca.,:
id, whereas siliceous material and rotenonr ...
substituted, in whole, for the article (nicota .'
.. :-..: : "
S 1 H'"
alleged for the reason that the statement.
"ACTIVE INGREDIENT: Nicotine alkaloid.
false and misleading and tended to deceive ::
e product consisted of siliceous material and
1 __ _* __... __-^ AA A _'







NOTICES'


JTDG


OKNT


="= I '--eH
Jrn&an information agiant rRex Inc., Detroit, Miel., 'alleging ship
aid corporation in violation 6f t Insecticide Act of 1910, on or about
17, 1941, and April 151942, from e State of Michigan into the'state of
.bf.Dtaahuantity off"^Rexsan Getaicide:Disinfectant. Odorant" and a
..jexsanDisfiikctant Deodort," which were adulterated and mis-.
flli iides within the meaning of reid adt.
ieged: in tthe information that each product was adulterated in that
ani -purity fell below the professed standard and quality under
Swa. sdlt, since each product was labeled, "Inert Ingredient: water
H iWt contained water in.a prolpbrtion greater than 22 percent.
tIs were alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "Inert In-
E1re*- 22%," borne on the label of each product, was false and mis-
tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since each product
r*er in a proportion greater th n 22 percent.
kt called "Rexsan Germicide Disinfectant Odorant" was alleged to
...d further in that the statement, "Germicide Rexsan has a
Stient of three plus," borne on. the label, was false and misleading
t.-deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the product had a phenol
.less: than three.
.a Ty 13, 1943, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $100 was im-
r.
..
B ration and misbranding of '"Fluorex V." U. S. v. 143 packages of
uuex V." Default decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product
e*ed to a' charitable institution for certain uses. (I. & F. No. 2284.
fNlo. 2455.)
"'is ~of ".Pluorex V" showed that this product contained less sodium
6: and more inert ingredients than were stated on the label. The label
..warrai~ted claims that the product would control all household beetles
tiloultry from further invasions of lice.. .
-. ter 22,.1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
..mai. acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
flCourt a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 143 packages, more
f. i Burex V," at Charleston, W. Va., alleging that the product had
. .ai-in~terstate commerce on or about July 11, 1942, by the American
Etfaxration, from New York, N. Y., and charging that the product was
Hted and misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide
i. *
~:t t was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
,ro.essed. standard and quality under which it was sold, namely,
..SN.REDIENT: Sodium Fluosilicate 75% INERT INGREDIENTS
VSM # n/" 9 *. ..


cwaS alleged to be misbradded in that the statements, "ACTIVE
..:.. Sqdum Fluosilicate 75% INERT INGREDIENTS 25% Total
onz tle label, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and
Ltrchaser, since, the product contained sodium fluosilicate in a
Lea~than 75 percent and inert ingredients in a proportion greater than
; -..'"


iquct was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement,
W". (A Ftuoride Insecticide) Fluorex V has proved to be
Sbat insecticide, much used in the household in the control of *
b tiaebs on the label, was false and misleading and tended to deceive and
4.le.mItrehaser,' since the product, when used as directed, would not
tl1l .household beetles.


m'C


lIE


k







560


.
INSECTIOIDE ACT


rt

I A.'
-. .i IA!I


1854. Miabrandfin of "Hy-Grade Hoze Gun Dormoloid.. Cartridge." Us.-::
Grade Colloidal insecticide Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine '.
one count: sentence was suspended on second'eount. (I. A F.::
I. D. Nos. 3068 and 3079.) : .i
An analysis of "Hy-Grade Hoze Gun Dormoloid Cartridge" showed1.
product consisted of mineral oil, soap and other emulsifying agent, and
On April 7, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern Distriet.
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed an..
in the district court against the Hy-Grade Colloidal Insecticide *Co.Jni.
Hempstead, N. Y., alleging shipment in interstate commerce oni or abo ..
1941, and September 2, 1941, from West Hempstead, N. Y., to Baton. ,
of a quantity of "Hy-Grade Hoze Gun Dormoloid-Cartridge," which pil
a misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning of the I
of 1910. .. ..
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the following..sta.
borne on the label and on circulars, spray charts, or display cartons aceomp*
the shipment: ..'-...
(Carton label) "Hoze Gun Dormoloid Cartridge (Colloidal Oil &ut
* *Every standard insecticide is now available in cartridge form 'i..;
Used as a dormant spray Directions Insert cartridge in chamber ofr3
attach same to hose, turn on water and spray. ,i.-. ..
(Display carton) "Hygrade Colloidal Insecticide Cartridges kill both'h
and sucking insects Hygrade Colloidal Insecticide Cartridges ..


I
i


*

.l


sects Its fun to spray
No. 10 Dormoloid cartridges for
Hygrade Colloidal Insecticide
* This package contains
any chamber type Garden Hose
(Small circular) "Its Fun to


the modern
use in any
Cartridges
twelve No.
Sprayer."
Spray the


way. This package contaishb
chamber type Garden Hose 6p
* Control Fungus De
10 Dormoloid Cartridges ir'tt


Hoze Gun


Way


Now


Your


Gd


* A- ^m'Uir


BH.....
A..
in ,
* x.. .*


Hose Does Double Duty Hy-Grade Hoze Gun Attach to Ga..rden. "
Insert Cartridge, Turn on the Water-Spray! Dornmoloid---A'..
Oil Cartridge. Used for Oyster Shell scale and wherever a miscible oil Uf....i
required." .s"-.- :, ,... .
(Spray chart) "Hy-Grade Hoze-Gun Spray Chart DeciduounB.-
and Shrubs Scale Dormoloid Dormant period before growth starts. *-:-*,
Broad Leaved Evergreens Such as Azaleas and Rhododendrons, etc.- Mitea-iwi.:
moloid Early in Spring before growth starts. Coniferous BwYit.r? "
Scale Bark aphis, Gall aphis Dormoloid Dormant period before growth 'H.^.
* Snowberry San Jose Scale Gray circular scales on twigsD. i.'
during dormant period." -S ,E-, --'


were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser,i,
the article, when used as directed, was not a standard insecticide or a .sataf.e
dormant spray; would not kill sucking and chewing insects and all inseetsl.;
not control fungus diseases, oyster-shell scale, and all other insects ebnt..to.
by miscible oils; would not control scales on deciduous trees and shrut4 .
on broad leaved evergreens, such as azaleas and rhododendrons, scalebatrt
and gall aphis on coniferous evergreens; and San Jose scale on snowberry.
On April 21, 1942, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $25 was imS
the first count; sentence was suspended on the second count, and the adem
was placed on probation for 30 days. ,:.


h 'V.

H
A
*
.1~
91'
H H
H
H ~. t
.~ I. ...H~H
H
I:
*H%, 4
-, ~ H
A


_L ?** .fc *.. -- .. .:....
1855. MIshranding of "Perfection Clean-Ster." I U. S. v. 11 flve-pmd:... .. :.,
"Perfection Clean-Ster."* Default decree of condemnatlon,. fO[I .:j:.-, .
and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2250. I. D. No. 3578.) -.' .. ii.*"r-H.
'S n S.- SEt ... S": *xC .*?t







& y;
Us i
:. r- /'
"* K^,
^SK::^
"sr" -:


ion hose: Use 4 teaspoonfuls to each
^tid pipe line. Remove dirt, dried, s
Ifela.el, were false and misleading a
set,, since the product was not a ch
1 when used as directed, would not s
Set was alleged to be misbranded
|7.t iEsubstances (substances other
.a... percentage amount of each iner
pat stated on the label, nor, in lien
Smount of the ingredient having fun
||amount of the inert substance state
'...~1, 1942, no claimant having a
gE(etture .was entered, and it wa


gallon of water. Draw sol


our milk and moisture depo
nd tended to deceive and mi
lorinnted sodium hydroxide


sterilize.
further
than ca
t substa
thereof,
gicidal


in that it consisted
lcium hypochlorite)
nee present in the
were the name and
properties and the


d on the inhel.
appeared, a decree of
s ordered that the


ution
sits,"
slead
cornm-


par-
and
prod-
I per-
total


condemna-
product be


ua of "Qntnsana." U. S.
I g Wine #200. (I. & P. No. 2278.
:P.eber 14, 1942, the United Stat es
.l.upon a report by the Secretdry
Eift, mation against The Mennen (
..t., .alleging shipment in interest
Sor..mNewark, N. J., to New York,
us.~a misbranded fungicide within

itoduet was alleged to be misbran


v. The Mennen
I. D. No. 2376.)
attorney for the I
of Agriculture,
Company, a New
ite commerce, on
N. Y., of a quan
the meaning of


ded


in that


Company.


Plea


District of New Jer-
filed in the district
Jersey corporation,
or about November
tity of "Quinsana,"
the Insecticide Act


the statements,


(Can)


S i. For Fungus Infection of the Reet (Athlete's Foot) For treatment and
..z[evention-sprinkle'Quinspna liberally and into shoes. *
Hto. powder inside your shoes-i-they may be a source of re-infection.
N Aztteight 3oz." (Carton) "'luinsana 83 oz. net *
.1is .powerful fungicide and bactericide and is effective as an aid in
J tent-and prevention of athletes foot. Soothing, non-irritating in con-


':" "561
|@ NOTICES, OF. :UDGMET '561

t et was allege4.to be.,:..is.bra ed in that. the statements, "A Special
.e": :Sodium..Hydroxid"""d ompoun and "Perfection. Clean-Ster *
l3?eaiMng..and SterilJing Milking Machine Rubbers and Tubing *
.;1.tCleans *,.i DIREqTIONS PERFECTION CLEAN-STER
> eal solition.B &r cleaning axi sterilizing milking machine rubber,
iupr',and.. used according to following directions: Add 2 ordinary
I of PJERFECTION CLEAN-STER to 1 gallon of cold water. Use
e jar. .of the sterilizing rack, filling. the test-cups and milk hose with
..on. leaving, it min the cups between milkings. For better results, the
P; .i. must be flushed immediately .after milking by drawing 1% gallons
;E .thru the test cups of each single unit or 3 gallons for each double
.ltv this by flushing with warnp water (about 160). Then put the
p..z3ack and fill them with PERFECTION .CLIEAN-STER SOLUTION
W.^rding to the above directiqnis. When the cups are taken out of
Id before milking, flush them with warm water to rinse out any
at may be left in them. *. PERFECTION CLEAN-STER
rse.ribed will keep the inside if milker rubbers clean and free from
"i .ng the growth of bacteria and prolonging the life of the rubber
terilizes as it cleans. OTHER USES FOR PERFECTION CLE.\N-
..w .washing or spraying floors, walls, etc. of cattle and horse barns;
Idtry houses. First remove filth and dirt. Then wash or spray with a
lde with 6 teaspoonfuls of PERFECTION CLEAN-STER to each
P water.used. For flushing and sweetening milking machine pipe lines


1




I *
*ihJq


562


INSECTICIDE


AcT.


.ar" a J!.* "f j
.... ** ...n. .
you had the infection in a previous year, be sure to apply Quinsana to i.i..
the shoes you may have worn then-including golf shoes; tennis sneakers,, *
or skiing shoes, bedroom slippers, etc. Use Quinsana two wI
feet and in shoes," borne on the labels of the cans and cartons, or contain !
circular shipped with the product, were false and misleading and tett..it
deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the product, when used asdirectl
not a powerful fungicide and bactericide; would not prevent recurrenedtqt ':
infection of the feet and reinfection from shoe linings; would not prqd&e:
to fight "Athlete's foot" disease: would not eradicate the fungus fromth.
would not help prevent infection or reinfection 'from shoes, bathrd .
gymnasiums, pools, and locker rooms; and the cans containing the proKfa
tained less than 3 ounces of the product. i
The product was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statente
S. Government Method for measuring the power of preparations to preflm.
growth of fungus is known as the Agar Cup-Plate test (Cire. 198, Dept..of 'A
culture). The wider the clear area around the 'cup' in center of tIat*ifl.
greater the power to prevent fungus growth. Note superiority of Qf.iTifk
(above, extreme right) compared with two other well-known Athlete' 1f
medications," borne on the circular, were false and misleading and tedti
deceive and mislead the purchaser, since Circular 198, U. S. Depattmehl
Agriculture, does not describe a United States Government method for, mna
the power of preparations to prevent the growth of the fungus causing ath
foot. ":


Misbranding was alleged f
partially of inert substances
bicarbonate, which do not pre


and the name
present in the p
lieu thereof, we
of the product h
Sage of the inert
On December


and pe'rcen
product were
re the name
having fungi
ingredients
1, 1942. a


tag
nc
a?
cid
sta
pl<


imposed on each of the two coi


1857.


Misbranding of "OrIeni
branding of "Triple A
Products C('orporation
I. D. Nos. 3q24 ,,d :3S25.


On September 23, 1942, the
of Illinois, acting upon a re[
district court an information
tiou, Chicago, Ill., alleging shi
ber 16, 1941, from Chicago, Ill.
Destroyer," which was a mi
Insecticide Act of 1910. The
ber 20, 1941, the Oriental Sa'
commerce from Chicago, Ill.,
Roach Powder," which was a
the meaning of the Insecticide
The "Oriental Insect Destr
statements, "Oriental Insect
* Directions Flies *
toward ceiling from dark end


are snraved.


or the further reason that the product coni ..*
or ingredients, namely, talc, kaolin, and .....
iveut, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bate lH....
re amount of each of the said inert litgif te4 :
)t stated plainly and correctly on the label, n* .
d percentage amount of each and every itlgr.
lal (bactericidal) properties and the total".
ted on the label. ,... "
ea of guilty was entered and a fine of $100 :J"..,
unt. ... is.
lal Inseet Destroyer" and adulteration ant M. I..*.
Action Roach Powder." U. S. v. Oriental S. ;.: 4
SPlea of guilty. Fine S25. (I. & F. N q,...
;: .................... -*; .-< ;>;-?' ;'^.ii>^ M:-->>i^^ qgE ^i i^^^fflifl^
> ~ ~. '" S
United States attorney for the Northern .D1M"fl.4 .
ort by the Secretary of Agriculture,. flted in W..r
against the Oriental Sanitary Products Ct.o..iM
pment in interstate commerce, on or about De ; ...
to Racine, Wis., of a quantity of "Oriental I' .
sbranded insecticide within the meaning ..,t::..
information alleged also that, on or abojt D '
information alleged also that, on or about nbc" : '


unitary Products Corporation shipped


ininte


to Racine, Wis., a quantity of "Triple *i
n adulterated and misbranded insecticide. wi. i
Act of 1910. ': .
oyer" was alleged to be misbranded in tht t.
Destroyer Destroys the insects and their
Close doors and windows. Spray l .
of room toward light. Be sure all partse'Wif


* 4


epn room lonaspd five to ten minnt Mothsr"R 'fltdii '


p


I
I




~.sX ~,T *'****** Si'
~-:
A.


'


* "


I *
S.
I
-
*


i..... ofeMS OF O: DGMENT 563
"* I '
: ,..p .* .

aibeloW the professed sta ard and quality under which it was
r.. 8Sdilim Fluorj.50% I rt Ingredients for Bait 25%."
eat wer alleged& 'be misbr. ded in that it consisted partially of
|..e (substance; other than s lium fluoride, borax, and pyrethrins),
6. did not.bea. the name an ",percentage amount of each such inert
: nor, in lien thereof, the nam and percentage amount of each active
)and the total percentage of th ineirt ingredients.
odzw( was alleged to be misbrnded further in that the statements,
td. :Sodium Fluoride 50% Othef Active Ingredients 25% Inert Ingre-
.fStit 25%" and "Triple Action Roach Powder Roaches
., ,Silver Bugs and Destroys Their Nests," borne on the label, were
.'a leading and' tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser since
t consisted of sodium fluoride a proportion of less than 50 percent;
xanid..percentage amounts of the other active ingredients were not
.product consisted of more tlhn 25 percent of inert ingredients, and
,*nert material was bait; the product, when used as directed, would
biple' action effectiveness; and the insects designated do not have
* it s
Imber 7, 1942 a plea of guilty was entered-and a fine of $25 was imposed.


Im p fuiug. of "Preventhem Spray," ' .. tthe Plant Spray," "Preventhem Powder," "Pine Oil DmIlnfeet-
..t.,d.?BengaPs Moth Crystals." U. S. v. Robert Hannes and Hillel
Bs, trading as The Bengal Company. Plea of guilty. Fine $200.
-.AF&., No. 2239. I D. Nos. 1959, 2303-2307, gnd 2310.)
mber 5, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District
Th, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
..9t:an .information against Robert Hannes and Hillel Hannes, copart-
.ing as The Bengal Company at New York City, N. Y., alleging shipment
P %e .commerce from New York City, N. Y., to Cranford, N. J., of a quan-
t,.i..reventhem Spray" on June 16,:.1941, a quantity of "Bengal's Japanese
.Y,' "Preventhem Plant Spray," "Preventhem Powder," and "Pine
|jeetant" on July 1, 1941,. a quantity of "Bengal's Moth Crystals" on July
U nid a-quantity of "Pine Oil Disinfectant" on July 24, 1941. All of the
I4ejjeoept the "Pine Oil Disinfectant" were alleged to be misbranded in-


%ps-within-.
titat"' was

5 'Preventh
pteventh


the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The "Pine Oil
alleged to be a misbranded fungicide within the.meaning of


em
3m


Spray" was alleged to be misbranded
Spray 'A pint of Preventhem is worth


in that
a gallon


the state-
of cure'


'.: -Spray regularly into seams and linings of mattress, also entire
Be sure to spray into woodwork of wall near bed For
$ .:C furniture spray into all the seams. Also spray woodwork of wall.
se also to Kill Flies, Mosquitoes, Moths, and All Insect Life *
Preventhem is worth a gallon of cure'. According to the stand-
4tory method of testing insecticides on living bugs, the Preventhem
s. tle highest.killing strength possible in bedbug sprays. We know of
the market other than Preenthem as powerful foc the prevention
roaches and chinches," borne on the label, were false and misleading
Sto deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the product, when used
ted, would not kill flies, mosquitoes, moths, and all other insect life; did
pt highest killing strength possible in bedbug sprays; and was not
pw.e.ful spray.for the prevention of bedbugs, roaches, and chinches.
19 Japanese Beetle Spray" was alleged to be misbranded in that it con-
.~d~i rtt.64 .1l..4 w. 4ww+~a4wasnna. +a w-i* cnilhdovAncf n4haf than .lawri.en


I/






564


Derris *
crawling insects.
kept; also along


prevent
there be
Preventh
these *
tive and
strength


kill
pos


INSECTICIDE


Preventhem Powder for
.* Directions:
baseboards and floor.


roaches, being
ches, Preventhej
powder for ants
* Preventhem
ing ingredients
sible in a spray,'


AC

he I
prir
'revi


scientifically prepa
m powder will kill
s and all crawling
Powder contains a
which give Preven
" borne on the label


tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, si
100 percent of active ingredients, did not conta
magnesium, did not contain derris, and, when
would not control roaches, ants, and all crawlin:


.* /.. :H* :

.re:e.*on o rone :,-i..
..;*
.*/'-^**g m...
insect It is quall....*
::..* --*JB Mk

prevention of roaches, aair:t..
Lkle powder wherever -teitit*
anthem powder will absoMu)v
red for that purposeunn. ;itI
them all without merey.
insects. It is equally god .r
ill of the spectacular prm ta'
them Spray the highest -kil*.
, were false and misl"ding a..a
nce the product did no cofhs' t
in fluosilicate of sodiuad: f
used as directed, the po dek
g insects, and it did not:cotasi


all the preventive and killing ingredients sufficient to give it the highestI..g
strength possible in a spray. ,:
Rrandng of hine Oil Disinfectant" was alleged for the reason that ie
product consisted partially of an inert substance, to wit, water, and the naiti
nt tge amc :nt thereof were not stated on the label, nor, in lieu there -0
the name and pelceitage amount of each ingredient having fungicidal properties.
and the total percentage amount of the inert substance. ... .
This product was alleged to be misbranded also in that the statementS."'r.ui
Oil Disinfectant Kills- Washing Pail Germs and Bacteria *.
Kts rthe germs ~ou tr into th e under shoe leather Purjfies
odors witl 3 times the strength of pI carbolic acid. Yet is harmless to cithn...
or skin,' borne in a cirecuarcatalog which accompanied the product, were Ai.'
at mileaig and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the p*d. "
ctoud t ki all germs or all bacteria, and it was not three times as stroml
aes arbolic id against odors. *
Misbraning of "B'engal's Moth ystals" was allege ed in that thea ta
Be.ngal' Moth Crystals: The important thing is motb-prooling
hI1stered furniture should be brushed vigorously with a whisk broom then
rikie under the cushtons with crystals. Do this every three weeks. Brush
the entire surface," borne in the circular shipped with the article, were faltsji. nd
misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the prou.at
when used as directed, would not act as a mothproofer or control moths in:U. ,p
bolstered furniture. -.. ..
On December 21, 1942, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $200
imposed. *:
~I.
18 ,| Adulterafion t MLses Braf ALtut aWUsh CWap
Chmeical Company. Plea of nolo contender to count one. Fine .9b'..
(I., & F. No. 2289. I. D. No. 4158.) .
Ana1sis qf "Lacco Brand Liu Fsh Oil Soapa" pogd"
contained S". percent of soap. ____ __ _
0i Niov br28, 142, the united Sta tes attorney for he tne-n l
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of.Agriculture, filed in the 4."
trict court an information against the Los Angeles Chemical Com an a co
tion, LdsA leIt dgg shipmer in itersfa commerce, on or a, ..
October 9, 1940, from Los Angeles, Calif., into the State of Arizona, of a qunaantit .. --
of "Lacco Brand Liquid Fish Oil Soap," which was an adulterated inseleticite
within thle meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and puriy#f k*
below the professed standard and quality under whichlLitwas sold,v..dsinft
labeled. *.







AL U1-5I10JSMiNX 565
. : "
. i.n find Hitlabra~m i.ofl U.- S. v.y Bemajnmln lanber,
*uap th LeoT a,*l;Sales iminay. i Plea of guilty.' Pine $25.
4o,2.o4. L:D.4D.) ,-: '
: sample of (C solin" sho ed that this product contained 17 pe
Also mi noil,..inert sutitances.
ter 27, 1$1 the United Sta s attorney for the Eastern District of
Scttig iqbn a report by t Secretary of Agridulture, filed in the
t p infonation against Be jamin Ingber, trading as the Leonard
uply,; alleging shipment in int state commerce, on or about June 19,
Sielphia, Pa., into the. Stat of New Jersey, of a quantity of "Creso-
g*ani adulterated and misbh nded fungicide within the meaning of
gect of 1910.
^ttct wis alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
.-' Messed standard and quality. under which it was sold, since it was
t Ingredient water less that 9%," whereas it contained more than
t-raitor.' Ia.
btwt was alleged to be misbhnded in that it consisted partially of
htanes, namely, water and mineral oil, and the name and percentage
Steof were not stated plainly and correctly on the label, nor, in lieu
e the name and percentage Amount of each and every substance or
t6f the product having fungibidal (bactericidal) properties and the
taged of the inert substances, present therein, stated plainly and
he label.
npig of the product was alleged further for the reason that the state-
,t-Ingfedient water less than '9%," borne on the label, was false and
i: .nd tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the product
Iwwre than 9 percent of water.
ppy 4, 1943, a plea of guilty was entered and the court imposed a


S ,* :


i[bftlni of '"Rexside" and adulteration and maibranding of 'Real-
itOr.'" U. S. v. Rexair, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine $275.. (I. & F. No. 2282.
,tiD: Nbs. 3834 and 3836.)
** JW ^lEw**"^
-. ber 10, 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District
04:acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
wirt aan information against Resair, Inc., Detroit, Mich., alleging ship-
4t estate commerce, on or about December 17, 1941, from Detroit,
?Milwaukee, Wis., of a quantity of "Rexide," which was a misbranded
flwithin the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The information
gd that Rezair, Inc., on or about July 25, 1941, shipped in interstate
J.rem Detroit, Mich., to Milwaukee, Wis., a quantity of "Reximator,"
... adulterated and misbranded insecticide within the meaning of
iIq Act of 1910.
dupt I"Reside," was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,
ptproofs Reside when properly applied will protect fab-
mioths for two years. Upholstery: Clean thoroughly all
I -pevices with Rexair creytce tool. Spray into crevices first, then
tisLdt.anml back. Spray all surfaces of removable cushions. Do not
ii os..until thoroughly dry. Clothes moths and carpet
attack' any and all materials of animal origin. Rexide, if properly
ll completely protect such materials from damage for two years," borne
M .i w'e.e false and misleading, and tended to deceive and mislead the
] etiwme the product, when used as directed, would not make fabrics
oo.t W.ould not protect fabrics add materials of animal origin from injury
b.,.f a period of 2 ears: and wbuld not control moths and carpet beetles




4t + *- H


566

and "Reximator Kills
Flies: Spray Reximato
Leave doors and window
false and misleading
the product had a lower
not kill all household p
On January 13, 194
imposed.
1862. Adulteration and
75 bags, each
Default decree
Nos. 3729 and 58
An analysis of "Coroi


**
i ,, ": :? l:^
........................... ..: "I"'
S*. ., : .. : 1 m.: *.

INSECTICIDE ACT I [N.:. ..:..

^ ,B ff :**'i
Household Pests Directions For Use' t tA
ir toward ceiling in the room and also directly oa I
ws closed for about ten minutes," borne on the label;.
mnd tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser -eue.
rating than grade A. A., and, when used as directed, ,,d~ d
ests and would not be an effective control of flies. *
3, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of,.$27 *,,
I* 6t .
S. H ..
... .+.. +. ,:.+ +
I mislbranding of "Corona 1% Rotenone Dustf .f.L. A' ..
containing 50 pounds, of "Corona 1% Roteno .
of condemnation and forfeiture. (I. & F. No. 22S%.. :f*
09.) .: : .i. :
a 1% Rotenone Dust" showed that this product cOgfisfl


less rotenone
On August
Michigan, ac
trict court a
bags, more o


than was stated on the label.. -. A
17, 1942, the United States attorney for the Western Djstr
ting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in t ed
libel praying seizure and condemnation at Pennville, Mich., .
r less, each containing 50 pounds, of "Corona 1% Rotenone Du


alleging that the product had been shipped in interstate commerce on or ".
June 26, 1941, by the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, from Milwaukee, Wi .
and charging that the product was an adulterated and misbranded insect. .t
within themeaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. ....:,..
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and puritt.l
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, namely, .'1
Rotenone Dust Analysis Rotenone 1% 1. 4M W:ii
gredients 96%." i .., .:i. :
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "1% Rotelp A
Dust Analysis Rotenone 1% Inert Ingre4 1,
* 90%," borne on the label, werefalse and misleading and tended to -piB
and mislead the purchaser, since the product contained rotenone in a proorti
of less than 1 percent and inert ingredients in a proportion greater than'9 percent
On February 17, 1943, no claimant having appeared, a decree of cond.emna '
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be delivered E
use by the Federal Correctional Institution located at Miles, Mich., fatlft
ingredient statement on each bag had been changed to read as follows: '. .:..


'I
'I


"ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
R ot none .. _-- ............................-.....- -- -- --
Other Cube Resins -.----------- -------------
INERT INGREDIENTS .. ----... -.- ---- -- ...---------........ -


H
~
H H.
.
flU%
96. ~O~&' I ~n:~.* H


1863. Adulteration and misbranding of "R0C0 0. T. yl feetantc!
': 6 *_J "" E.'^ "" ,." -> ? ''' "v ^. A w^ '* ^ i"^^^^^^^-^
65-gallon drum of "ROCO C. T. DIsinfeetant." Default decree of Su 4..: .1
nation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2303. 1. D. No. 865) ::: .
An analysis of "ROCO C. T. Disinfectant" showed that this product eontstai:r:' :,
56.5 percent water. :
On January 4, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern Distrilaebd ..
South Carolina, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed, in tbh,
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of one 65-gallonwdgfsj .
more or less, of "ROCO C. T. Disinfectant," at Lake City, S. C., alleging thattbI d:
product had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 15. tW* ..,:i
by the Royal Manufacturing Company, from Augusta, Ga., and chargigu't4 :. ,
the product was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within thenS .
of the Insecticide Act of 1910. ,.







-:
.1.
'H
I.
A..:.
Mr. .~
H!;;!! *!


~J~J.L


..i.. going .hip.hent in wtersta commerce on or about May 7, 1942,
OQL., into theft Sta Ala ..na, of a quantity of "P.'aramount Ko-
itj'"which was z.ffisbtani fuangicide-within the meaning of the
r~ '-- |
ft1910. .!
was.alleged be misbran d i,6 that it consisted partially of an
; narnilW water, which subs ance does not. prevent,, destroy, repel,
|tWgi ,tiacteria), and the nam@ and percentage amount thereof were
i.a.fland correctly on the la*, nor, in lieu thereof, were the name
g apount ,ef each and every substance or ingredient of the product
,elis properties and the total percentage of the inert substances,
.... .stated:piainly and correctly on the label.
fi,.1943, a plea of .guilty was entered and the court imposed a fine
It"! *. '- f


w ^.:- ..
.lE$in- and misbranding of "Standard Cresol Compound U. S. P. XI
, i" -r.eaolis Saponatus)." U.'S. v. Ben' Welsberger and Jacob Wees-
.tradingl as the Standard Disinfectant Company. Plea of guilty
mt one. Fine of $12.50 oM each defendant. (I. & F. No. 2276.
.ir 1 3969i.)
orat 1 942 the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
S. upon a report, by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
rthformation against Ben'Weisberger and Jacob Weisberger, co-
..inimder the name Standard Disinfectant Company at Memphis,
Sashipment in .interstate commerce, on or about December 10, 1941,
si....enn., .into the State of Soth Carolina, of a quantity of "Standard
mind U. S. P. XI (Liquor Cresolis Saponatus)," which was an adulter-
-\one) .and misbranded (count two) fungicide within the meaning of
Act .of 1910.
e .was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement "Standard
ni4 :U. S. P. XI (Liquor Cresolis Saponatus).," borne on the drum,
litwas a. standdird cresol compound, whereas it was not a standard
B. d as prescribed in the United States. Pharmacopoeia XI, but
i..nce, tar acids had been substituted in part for cresol.
.., i,..plea of guilty, was entered to count one; count two was dis-
.t.... court imposed a fine of .$12.50 on each defendant. .
_ d*J' of "Rot-O-Spray." UI. S. v. Garden Hose Spray Company, Ine.
S 6tf guilty. Fine $25. (I. & F. No. 2246. I. D. Nos. 827-E, 1946, and
6.)


i .1,t94, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts,
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture filed in the district court
n against the Garden Hose Spray Company, Inc., alleging shipment
....'rerce, on or.abodt Februahry 21, 1940, and April 28 and May 19,
sten ad Cambridge, Mass., into the States of Georgia and Pennsyl-
a.tities of "Rot-Q-Spray," which was' a misbranded insecticide with-
,it g of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
'i :lhich was. shipped on Fe.ruary 21,. 1940, was alleged to be mis-
t att. following statements, borne on the label and display carton,
'i4itel ea.ding, and, by reason thereof, the product was labeled so
ia j..mislead purchasers, sin"e, when used as directed, it would not
|.ei..en. mite, Mexican bean betle, striped cucumber beetle, garden
lzli .t e4es .as claimed: .
'Et.T-O- S.RAY For ,use in .krden Hose Insecticide Sprayers An in-
o. controll. of such insects a Cyclamen Mite, Mexican Bean Beetle,
duber Beetle and Red Sider *. DIRECTIONS: Insert


F





A.




S* *.
S".
4
a, *


568


INISEOTICInE


ACI,-


are in place, and attach to sprayer shut-off on eedd of'bose. Spray ,
of leaves thoroughly. When through spraying remove cartridge an.q
in original container. Keep in cool,.dry place." .: : .:.
(Circular) "For best results and for a more concentrated spraying
this cartridge must be replaced by a .new cartridge when one-third..
been used. When cartridges are replaced the old cartridge may. be s..
when several pieces have accumulated they may be used by puttila.
pieces in the chamber to completely fill ,it. If, instead of rea
cartridge when one-third used, an additional piece of' cartridge be',
that the cartridge.chamber is practically full again, the same CQo
will be obtained. Satisfactory spraying results have been obtained IJti
of this cartridge without changing or keeping the chamber practical.
nil 4l 4 i n r. b i. 'sawn in .iv n .n *vl n nyith fiaa


an LU.tUs UUL L
chamber is not
On May 4, 19
1867. Misbrani
Chemic
2295.
On March 8
Louisiana, act!
district court a
a Corporation,
1942, from Ne
"Pine Oil Disi
of the Insectici
The product
inert substance
were not stated
were the name
of the product
centage of the
or at all, on the
Misbranding
Oil Disinfectan
and, by reason
purchasers, siT
disinfectant an
On March 31
$100 and costs


ueiCmier maLxmum eAUIecUfJ is eCaLIV eoL wuJ enl^liJaM. 2 '.
less than one-third full." -;...' : .::wi'
143, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $25 was zii* : '.
,^ : ':*"S : ," ,' lar~ ? :,,,'i" :,
ding of "Pine Oil Disinfeetant." U. S. v. 'i'homps o ..
al Company. Plea of guilty. Fine $50 and costs. (JL. .:^.
I. D. No. 5146.) 6" "J
S1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern Dp *
ing upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, 4El
n information against the Thompson-Hayward Chemical C:'
alleging shipment in interstate commerce, on or about
w Orleans, La., into the State of Mississippi, of a Qua
nfectant," which was a misbranded fungicide within th:
de Act of 1910. :. ,. ;: $1
was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partiNKl..::
e, namely, water, and the name and percentage amob i d*|
1 plainly and correctly, or at all, on the label, nor, in.liefiiS<
and Rercentage amount of each and every substance obrit n,
having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and the t...O.
inert substance, present therein, stated plainly and ..: .,
Label. ,:..H:
of the product was alleged further in that the statemenfl't.$..
t," borne on the label affixed to the drum, was false atid mbtsI t :':4'
thereof, the product was labeled so as to deceive and.
ice it was not pine oil disinfectant but consisted oef. 'p t. ..:
*d water. *: :."% .It,
1943, a plea of guilty was entered and the court imposed iftleig-
of the prosecution. *; ... -._.. :
,,h ~"" .'.i..ae ,/*f "CrE:9:j, 1.


1868. Adulteration and misbranding of "Cop-Ar-NIne and xnlabandia qf.
O-Spray." U. S. v. Garden Hose Spray Company, Inc. PiM
Fine $25. (I. & F. No. 2290. I. D. Noe. 2977, 4405, and 5007.) -' .'.
Analysis of cartridges of the product called "Cop-Ar-Nic" showed thlie t
content (average of seven cartridges) to be 8.45 percent ....
On January 22, 1943, the United Sttes attorney for the Distri. ..


chusetts, acting upon a report by
court an information against the
Mass., alleging shipment in int
1940, and January 23 and March
of Louisiana, Georgia, and Rhode
O-Spray." It was charged that


the Secretary of Agriculture, filed iii th
Garden Hose Sprpy Company, Inc.,.EJ
estate commerce, on or about Det
6, 1942, from Cambridge, Mass., into, e'
Island, of a quantity of "Cop-Ar-NieT
the "Cop-Ar-Nic" was an adulteratetL


branded insecticide and the "Jap-O-Spray" was a mis
the mAflning nf th Tlnrnpptiiridp Ant nf 1Ql1


branded insectia







rr.r,
I'M'
HI II
A












*II

'H



II!

A





I

4






* I
'1
1*






LII

IlL

I,
I.
H.


I
Pt,


it'
I..



V



I

I,

t

'U
I)

* I

'Ii


I. 7~ '1*

*.mC*
hii.
.2 **. -
4s.


r .i .
"* .,. :

*. NOT EB ..SOF
.** **


V
-a


569


.e~.pray: ,Arnold Inseqtceie fiartridges. Cop-Ar-Nic .* Cop-
Mnaroldt'.Garden H .p Spra r *.. -* Directions: Insert car-
rl: of sprayer, tah g sure 11. rubber washers are in place, and
er shut-off on, rkd of hose.. Spray-under leaves thoroughly."
called "Jagpe-Spray"'was il1eged to be misbranded in that the
tements, borne on the label were false and misleading, and by
.-the article was labeled s as to deceive and mislead the pur-
when used as directed, it wguld riot control rose chafer, Japanese
lntLarly resistant insects:: "Jfp-O-Spray For Use in Garden Hose
i.rayers An extra strength cartridge for use in combating Japanese
b*6o hafer and similarly resistant insects."
tt94 a pla pe of guilty was entered and a fine of $25 was imposed.
e' nation and misbranding of "Mystic Roach Powder" and "Mystle
-and Roach Powder." U. S. vi' Grover Cleveland MeDonald, trading
475tle Chemical Company. Plea of guilty. Fine $10 and chests of
,-:-. (I. & F. No. 2315. I. D. Nos. 5201 and 5244.)
I21, 1943, the United States attorney for the Western District of
1ting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
t an information against Grover Cleveland McDonald, trading as
.. Chemical Company at Louisville, Ky., alleging shipment in interstate
,orn or about May 25, 1942, from Louisville, Ky., to New Albany, Ind.,
litfty of "Mystic Roach Powder,"/' which-was an adulterated and mis-
iunsecticide within the meaning. of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The
S& also alleged shipment in interstate commerce, on or about October
$I1by said defendant from Louisville, 'Ky., to New Albany, Ind., of a


*'";'Mysuti
l .Jisecti
iffetio RoE
4be- misi
-loride .8
. lEng and
itamined sod
!edients in
p~ducts wc
edtie profe'
S}INGREE
a 4,n1943,
3, fas impo


c..Ant and Roach Powder," which was an
cide within the meaning of the Insecticide
ich Powder" and the "Mystic Ant and Roa
branded in that the statements, "ACTIVE
0% Inert Ingredients 20%," borne on the I


tended to deceive and mislead
ium fluoride in a proportion
a'proportion greater than 20 pe
ere alleged to be adulterated in
ssed standard and quality under
IENTS Spdium Fluoride 80%
a plea of guilty was entered an
sed.


adulterated and
Act of 1910.
ch Powder" were
INGREDIENTS
abels, were false


the purchaser, since the prod-
of less than 80 percent and
recent .
that their strength and purity
which they were sold, namely,
Inert Ingredients 20%."
id a fine of $10, together with


Mu teration and misabranding of "Chloraide." U. S. v. 40 one-quart, 34
.|n.e-pint, and 84 eight-fluld-ounce bottles of "Chloraide." Default de-
r Wbof condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2311.
.... D. No. 6241.)
diiuct "Chloraide," was found to contain less sodium hypochlorite and
r ingredients than were stated on the label.
|&d 26,. 1943, the United StateA attorney for the Eastern District of
i..".tinIg upon a report by the Sqeretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 40 one-quart bottles, 34
I&Jlttles, and 34 eight-fluid-ounce bottles, more or less, of "Chloraide," at
1j Mo., alleging that the product had been shipped in interstate com-
wia.r about May 21, 1942, by the Farmaide Products Company, from Lin-
:,^ arguing that the product was an adulterated and misbranded
WIAt(intfectant) within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
uiwas alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
nskn*PaaonA cid- njAn .A nflvat -. a n A-w. hnn wwh nl, 4I4- wrns seltal a -atnlt




"h. ..i '.H. jut^ 4-
*".~~H f a."
*', "E!i.H 'i
4",:x


570


INSECTICIDE


ACEr


[N. J.,I.F.J.Mt
1:,':


ed to be misbranded
da Fountains, Restaur:
warm water. Do not


glass accord
oraide, using


p


ng


; immerse tne glass or disi
clean water then drain ant
t, and eight-ounce bottles;
?ptic solution equivalent to I
of water," borne on the lab
Disinfectant Solution-To
ution add one part Chloraic
zht-ounce bottle, were false


he purchaser, since the p]


and would not make a solution equivale
directed.
- On June 15, 1943, no claimant having
forfeiture, and destruction was entered,


INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


Bo-Ro Klean-New:
Boro Products Sales Corporation_
Calco California White Pine:
Interstate Supply Company ..
Chloraide:
Farmaide Products Company .-...-
Clo-White:
Coastal Chemical Company .... --
Cop-Ar-Nic and Jap-O-Spray:
Garden Hose Spray Company, Inc.
Corona 1% Rotenone Dust:
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company-
Cresolin:
Benjamin Ingber---------.
Leonard Sales Company-- ..-..
DAG Deodorant Antiseptic Germicide :
Keller Products Company-----
Fluorex V:
American Fluoride Corporation_-
Genuine Glassine The Original Com-
bination Cleanser and Bactericide:
Charles P. Newberry and Irma A.
Newberry -- ----
New Chemical Company -.....
Hexol:
Hexol, Incorporated-------- ...
Hy-Grade Hoze Gun Dormoloid Car-
tridge :
Hy-Grade Colloidal Insecticide
Co., Inc -_ _.. ..... _- .. -- -
Lacco Brand Liquid Fish Oil Soap:
Los Angeles Chemical Company_
Mystic Roach Powder and Mystic Ant
and Roach Powder:
Grover Cleveland McDonald -....
Mystic Chemical Company ..--... -
Nicotine Dust No. 10:
The Sherwin-Willianms Co-------
Oriental Insect Destroyer and Triple
Action Roach Powder:
rioni{tol Sanitapry Prodnopta Par-


N. J. No.


1843
1844
1870
1850
1868
1862
1860
1860
1846
1853


1845
1845
1849


1854
1859
8
1869
1869
1851


The product was alleg
"Beverage Dispensers, Soi
effective in either cold or
dishes; first wash dish or
Prepare a solution of Chl


3* -


further in that the. Statefil
ants, Beer Taverns-Ghkr
use boiling water. 'Forg-g
rules of the Health Depa_
ces of Chloraide to three -a.f*
a period of two minute iE.
borne on the labels. attliai
statement, "Dakin's SIo toti,
s Solution add one pai.t Q.o0li
he one-pint bottle, anltbitsM
a solution equivalent in:ta|t
even parts water,".-borne a0.
misleading and tended topeh-


of water used
thoroughly in
quart, one-pin
make an antise
to seven parts
meant "Dakin's
to Dakin's Sol
label of the eij
and mislead t


to the
'o ounD
Sfor
I dry,1
the s
Dakin'
el oft
make
Ie to s
and i


product was not a reliable dIiirfi : ..
nt to Dakin's solution when dill1t "..
: g":." ...
,4 ... p
appeared, a decree of condeu "...
and the product was ordered d"t"t

SJUDGMENT 1841-1870 ".'.. H..
: i.. .
Perfection Clean-Ster: :. .1 v:","
Michigan Silo Company ___. ..
Pine Oil Disinfectant: .' '*,..
Thompson-Hayward C h e m I c'at! *, .
Company -s .:.
Preventhem Spray, Bengal's Japan. .:'"-
Beetle Spray, Preventhem Fl J'*. ':."...
Spray, Preventhem Powder, Pine *01$:1.':" *
Disinfectant, and Bengal's Mo 4.!.ja;: **
Crystals : .a. n .
n d J' ".':. ," .... .. : h'",.::(. *"!
Robert Hannes ad Hillel "ade ..
The Bengal Company-...- .. _.'r ...
Quinsana: .. *
The Mennen Company_....>. 4 _..
Rainbow Super-Refined Bleach and Ij .: .. :
infectant: i' .p -. .. ..
Naylee Chemical Company_.f.._As,.
Reside and Reximator: .. .
^_^ A M J. 1* 'V i~rB
Rexair, Inc ....... .... .. ....
Rexsan Germicide Disinfectant Odor-
ant and Rexsan Disinfeetant *.De ..
odorant :
Rez^air In.-------.......";..
ROCO C. T. Disinfectant:- ,, ,*:.;.
Royal Manufacturing Companyw **.1
ROT-O-Spray: "* '"
Garden Hose Spray Compaay... ..ic S
Savaday Wash: ,f ..-
Barton Chemical Company-.;. a.:i
Special Formula Flea Powder Juatrite p. .
No. 1023: ...
S. B. Penick Company ...... .
Special Rotenone---Lead Arsenate-. ,.I
Sulfur Dust: n .H.
Micronizer Processing Compat,H *.
Inc -- -- -- h ....-
Standard Cresol Compound U. S.SiL:*,t:.
(Liquor Cresolis Salihatus) : yH
Ben Weisberger and Jacob .4. n
Iberger- ---- .... s..?a." "
Standard fisinfectant Comnaurw .,


r







a '1~.
iv
r
C
-S.


I


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

SIi l I l 11111111 1 111111111111llI111 11I
3 1262 08582 5072


* '4'