Notices of judgment under the insecticide act


Material Information

Notices of judgment under the insecticide act
Physical Description:
v. : ; 23 cm.
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
U.S. G.P.O.
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Publication Date:
completely irregular


Subjects / Keywords:
Insecticides -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
serial   ( sobekcm )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )


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
ddc - 632.951 U61
System ID:

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text

I' *~
Ii -
* I?.
At. *.
* .
* 41 I~ -
.. I -

H. '~4I

*~. ~A
~ S

,,. %. s. fol ; a. 4-< .. ~ *. i -* Hs *"
j t. I .. -- .
,, ., ". i *g, ..,. .. ":X .. ... :. -~
.. .....a s a l l e g .. i t ,. nl An

b -
_. .1 ,, .. -. '. ..... .. f .* .V ..- M "w
.".. ,/ I -,..ED. S, .A *:'*/ .'i

..mtdnrtw~ u aegd m .at itsst rength n

.e t,..S d u .. ..hl ri ,.. "' M ien......
b -e ..ttfel se s tard .* "wIe, it" s .ol ,ce"]f

.,u ver sedienth S..o....... ....d..upyrit'.in...:...
t. y :' --. :.
.'.- .. .. ." ... .. ., *... .. .... ." ..' .... ..... -.' .-" .
-- li .- .e H.. H ar Hiy '6 ''ilHifi < p na~ t ..a !n ." nH^ y^ H Hi

..s *1at.. .. .- -e. .
e odnct was aUe!ed torhe. .strgtandte.ll
inj ient Sodium flyp.ehloritz .. 4 ItI.I" "
,^'^~'..rfssd ..,.aad:^^| ,., .tsT~f~

b1gxn.the label, were false V '_!A4 .'a~d S:ded. to deei~vea.
hpfrae, sice h' 4tm' -a,. ,bnmoblrooriteion a
l1lthtu5 percent byv w.,eh.dikI i .nert Xdtnt.ts a.rprin
_.wvr ".. -"'r'. ** : ,. ". "' .. .*:

< :A.-jtifgment "of forf-eie '"".. con--ldeiation'ihaving been ent. a...
ca.e and the claimant having ied a tand in the -a ,of 500, The -,
29i 1942, ordered that the product: be released to the claimant and....
relabeled in accordance with the provislont f tht Insecticide Act. .. B.
183. 3Misbranding of "Stero-Ol'" -f. S. v. Sterlje Produets Comim'.lwt '".
rated. Plea of nolo contender. fine $250. (I. & F. No. 2255. 1
.. 2796 and 2797.) .:
.... -)n May 2, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern Di 'ri ':i" '"
,- fo0.ia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculturd, filed .t :
co"t an information against the Sterile Products Company, Inc
.. 3 ::
alleing shipment in interstate. dmmerc4e on or about March 13, 1940,.,.
,.:I 14f-941, from San Diego, Calif., into thime Btate of Texas, of quantities ..
Ot(:which was a misbrawudejangi-mle within the meaning of the In
.* O .|
E*Hj F r^b"*^^ "a "L Bi^^3^^nHBmfPfijyA
of *.* .*. ,, .. ... ..
". he product was alleged: to be.pitranded in that it consisted "
*. inert substances, namely, mineral oil derivatives (including petrole'HA
.. and lubricating oils), which do not prevent, destroy, repel, or miti al...le
" ..,. (tiaetria), and the name and the percentage amount thereof were a:. t.".,
plainly and correctly on the label, nor, in liea thereof, were the name
percentage amount of. each and evwry ubstance or ingredient at! t'j
..- having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties and the total percentajegI-
SInert substances, present therein, stated plainly and correctly on the It
The product was alleged to be misbranded further in that the tt ::
"Stero-Oil 4 in 1 Sanitizes dental handpieces. ."
most practical technique for solution of all handpiece troubles. O. "=....
One operation, One minute," 'borne on the 8-ounce carton and bottle I ".
the statements, "Stero-Oil 4 in 1 The Original Handpiece Trouble
tor Stero-Oil 4 in 1 One Bottle One Minute One Operation: A. _..
Stero-Oil 4 in 1 Eliminates Handpiece Troubles ...
.:: 4 in 1 Provides a Practical Technique for solution of handpiece tronblIt*... :l... .
..- minute, one bottle, one operation. Bacteriologically Tested,"' toi
the carton, and "Stero-Oil 4 in 1 Bacterologically Tested Pr .I [.
": Practical Technique for solution ot handplice troubles in one minute, oGneI*.
..: one !operation," borne on. the label of the 2-oune bottle, were false l
:. .leading and tended to'dteeive and,'is~teadhepar.aar, since the.prser...
...not. disinfect dental haidpieees in tianubt .-.:.....
'"..".. '.he product was alleged to bei mfibrdbed farther in that the .. '.
.: "FOREWORD ON S ERILIZATION d t.ts disclose the prest ..stu
Sold millions of virulent organims in the eTRIGHT IMANDPIEC)H.. .
. .'ly following use in a patient's mouth. De rminations from these t. 'l.i.
":'.many types of infetelio. orgemisas. 2Vhpirevent their transmission Mel,,k:::S*
. ,to mouth the straight handpie must ..ariled each- time used.!u's,:,'.r
~zatlon is impractical,.in.ponsistent witll the earning power of dentistry u. r.
NOT BE DONE. A qqick, .simple technique obviating the necessity..of vgS. .
*4L l, nA.Inn 1 4l au na I. n- 4. 1 a ni n at 4.1 arl .n anj6 49iiifUUB" n. f -

.... .".....:.. *. 1 :. .
: *... ... ..

.*1: .oa. w t r e p t ,.e .
*-. -b .
st inuteo th .. :- sur-sow

." 1 "" p I :i
: Sta.. f keoc. ... .'..'8)patt -.w'a. pr..
8- Eqns .- .,rpbenol i%. -' an

i .. aie ng 5.emove t t.e the bottle organ wi.
l wita teile dotl. Note,,.ThInc., thvolatile properties 0.
by herry*A frtp
'evapo but tle new bicant cntaied ~w Seron b a Oii to .
.jTI13O usflv' TEIL -. .. 4. .nne$
e in on qSezuera~t{ ts tt1l nai:-Stero dir util, the entire
sf~~u~tely qpv~ede with Ster'o O11, rhnun the engine ONE h.i
easin .-5. Wbmove the aug12 from the bottle ant i.
edry ,wth a sterile cloth. (Note.,...The volatile properties o4
.evapor je but the new lbricant c n~taiIned in. Ste~ro Oil teP
thi rzirmcide. a.nd essential oils, remain., over the working partS.
'x.u cation r about one hour of continuous operation.) *
Eg,-t4~:s instruaionn, the runni g-life of hialpieces, will be p.'rolonge0.
v trouble ininated azdryou, will hav the satisfaction of know.
..othpt your ients, tnax. r rotectio against tranma.ission ok
gi.vmouth ..moutr, ,apifiarg on'a dircular shipp w ith thh
tatem u't*aeteiol eprtn a specimen 49(.
tort St1 ,.Vfft4fa'cte 6., IaC. San Diego, Calif. .:.cubation
.1OrganisiA? BStAfiyld o"fA Ahrt t +Method: Dry Fil1tr Paper,
S(-+)' Indicate towth, IMaiu: r- ) indicates No Growthb

,- .,.i.... ";" .- i. -'. ., ., -*... *. .e of .Wa o urd .:..
..,.,- .. .. : *. -. .. ;,' :::. : .... ... 10 S ac O.. e .
:. LYU.* : 1 *
1o. .:- .' : .- .. J --. .., r
FO --.-- --...-- -+- --. .-. -
a .. .. .
-- -- -.- - t .n - -
H.. ..." .. .1 ,

-. ..
-w ~-t~ -- 1J ----- --~
S... -
4 .
*:..: I .
S. C I -

5 Min. 10 Min.. 15 Min.
",, ..

tb-earTd acompanying the bottles, were false and misleading, and by
IE *tateinents the prodnet-w as labeled and branded so as to 'deceive
*tu putchiser, since it Would not kill virulent strains of Stdphylocob-
.,.1 ipinute nor resistant strains of this organism in 5, 10, and 20
W ff' riot sterflize or be effective as'a germicide and di infectant
":. .. : ,",. ..H
directed : C -.. .*. ,.- I -
-g t:'alegled further .in't tat tle ib6ttlb label bore the statement
&sE'e het cont&tit a'less fs "I.. t .
..2.5 142, a plea at!Aul *~nd .t" wlsv .terd. and the coitt

-,. : ,Cr, .* : : -
. I-B Ij~.t at _.a.: ^*.*~ & 'tP S Pf ^*a- ***'

isa anau nhlbraumCEutrto'Wi.; En.* HuaeptZlde." U* *. r.
mJon bottles of aasUIU I, ,Default decree of
'aqoni an .'i ftetu e.. aiih e Ulizabeth. Hospital
i tnly. (4 .. N(Xbb$ A:p .. I.. *
.u i'p .. *rp.` .***
I.1942, the itqd State e %he District of olumbia
t by the 0ilertlair'otA r .,...'edin the district court
re and.*demfnatio Relon.bottles c "Adams
1hS which hadtbeea sbippedC Pnid BrS, on or about September
l e, M,..,. thADsisturiei' si a Theliel..etharged that
u.Wmisbr~dOd .and. atlbte tm..e eetleide within the: mean

'.4 1
- H *


*. *. ,* n: ..s -,. ": : .
.. ,u .. ii w. .t*
.l ,, ,| .* -. '':.*t .-: r .'^ i
*' *'- I"S8 ^ !*
l" I, "" T lD -' "."CT IS E D"A .. ,'C .T

S hie product was alleged to be misbrarided in.'that the
pi ceding paragraph, and the statements, to it, "A ..IAiuid iiisecticid .
s asied' through a gun, it generates a spray '-of exceptional penetinfitg
Sd on toying by inhalaption and +contact. ,*, Poweful '**l:
agaipst Flies .* Roaches, Water Bugs ,* Directis.::.*..
For Flies Spray upwards freely in closed robm until t1 aft
charged with the vapor. If the insects do not drop floor in 3 to ..
give a short additional spraying as quantity first used was insufficient V...
Fqr jRoaches, Water Bugs Spray direct on floor into acll.-.
/cr 4vices, floor boards, back of mouldings, under sinks, tubs, and along .t
or, any place where insects may have concealed themselves. Repeat ~ti
they disappear, then spray weekly to prevent further breeding," b'"he
label, were false and misleading, and, by reason thereof, the article. wat
so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since it was not a Grade AAX Jq. t
ticide, was not powerful, did not possess exceptional penetrating powet td
the insects named on the label, and, when used as directed, would n6t(
flies, roaches, and water bugs. ..
On January 7, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of coit
and forfeiture was entered and, by order of the court, the product wart.i
J. lA. l* t .&L.- TT.... t..1 S. S .~1.... ...* t. ...

to.St. Elizabe

hs Hospital for its use only an r


1875. Adulteration and misbranding of "MeKesson's Mosquitone CreamaW
.Repellent." IU. S. v. McKesson & Robbins, Incorporated. Pleai:.
contender. Fine $300, (I. & F. No. 2296. I, D. Nos. 2451, 4081, .4
On January 5, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Con.
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the distWit.
an information against McKesson & Robbins, Incorporated, alleging shi4$
interstate commerce on or about May 12, 1941, and March 12 and June
from Bridgeport, Conn., into the States of New Jersey and California, Dr

Act of
and to

of "McKesson's
rated and misb
product was all<
" borne on the
the cartons coni

ard and quality were
than 61.2 percent, whe
professed standard an
in a proportion greater
The product was al
61.2%," "Contents 1'
of the tubes and carto
thereof, the product w
contained more than 6

a fine

on the

Mosquitone Cream Mosquito Repellent," whl!r *
randed insecticide within the meaning of th IneU
i ."....
eged to be adulterated in that the statement, to wit...
labels affixed to each of the tubes containing the..
ta ing the tubes, purported and represented that it,
such that it contained water in the proportion of ni
.reas the strength and purity of the product fell
d quality under which it was sold, since it contai.l
r than 61.2 percent. '* ..i::.
alleged to be misbranded in that the statement!,
Ounces," and "1 Dozen 1, Oz. Tubes," borne on4ell,1
ns, respectively, were false and misleading, and,.by
as labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers ,
1.2 percent of water and the net content was less .
.* ; r -

April 2, 1943, a plea of nolo contender was entered and the court .... ...
of $50 on each of six counts, a total of $300. -. .f4 -
i -~~- '_ lll i' ..." "
Misbranding of "T--P--." U. S. v. 10 dozen bottles of "'T-- a.....::.
fault decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. rE* I ..Sb
2310. I. D. No. 6535.) .tth a..rg ne. ..'t
examination of."T-O-P-Z" showed that the average net content,,X2 b.B
ned) was 2.60 fluid ounces or 13 percent less than the 3 fluid otnes .-



- ..~ ry .. S ts.u at ~ T.~ a- a n j. a- A... -- -- at r -. -

: "..' "

Am J A JA i ii

me i = i

I a
H ..... *:
sm hum r k gowsujor:- psat products preatisI oo ered-
dred per cep .mre effective as. a rpellent than citronesil. or peng
.aa,.d.). T-.hRZ igwr0 m*&^ .ffaf ,ye 'thamCif Ioitl.Por- erin
/.f *p .ellep. BIorne Qon the Iabel, weie falsp and miseading aun
O erfld pr(belp^aS to. deei7etand fil'saehkiudreh'asei
..... p. ........e a.. ."*. .. ...
ottents wa ;l"sxaih 3S hlui.nnces andthe produet4hen used
alil:hedi r.te Msect -faMet, in. frfnr: 4 to 6 ho$ M&s implied,
.w .aei st r foai Vos si' hoirs," ani is: not T,200 rc.nt .more.
.,"lHent tina citoanelia orr oeanyroywl 1 ..
Wi.S. no claias htwing- appeared, a decree of condemnation and
wasentered, aid the product was ordered destroyed. '.
.. t^*pt and ,.psbrandi..0 of ".olut. Cresol Compound. (Saponatqi
(lit'b Cresd "U. S. P.' U. S. Ancehor Serum Comnafl Plea of
SteOLt.^ smt 910i on course onef $50 on eoutit two; and $20X for e6.t
v&:.*!..297'. L w.. No-, 4585.) .. I ... :
i"Oe'Solet: Cre se Compound (Saponated Solution of Cresrt)I. U.. S- PYt
Uthee product eersisted' o soap,: water, glycerine, and cnesolsr.'the wat&*
,aueota t beigg. 15.1 and 2.8' percent, respectvely. ..
mber 23i 1942, the United States attorney for the Western I District tdf
ifcen a repent by the Seeretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
...oinn against the' Aiaehot Serum Company, alleging *shipment itt
^ iai ee, oG' ot about: April 1,5, 1942j from South St. Josepl; Mo.,. intho
e .l" a, -of a qatitty -of "Selu&. Cresol Compound (SaRo na*ted' Solution
..' :].,_" whidJ 'wds am adiuitevated and misbranded fungicide Within
.iof the' Insectitie Act of 191i0. /- :
jed. that thea product.fws adulterated itithai. the statement,.--' "Inet
.:WMtewAbout0lo",?' 'borne! on, there labet: a~sedffd to each of- tbd' Wbttle
.ej )produet,..purporte~t and' iseplese nLed tthat the standard aid' quality
at the product contained watetin the proplition, of not 'foret"if"
i&Jf.he ,str4englih andc pity of the produeti fell below th- pr'ef'Sed
,,, .uaider' which it was sold, sinae it contained- watei dia a
a .than 10 percent. ..... ..
Swas .SA'egeU to be mnisbranded m ..tba, the stateme te'Inert In-
W.ater .At uS'100% .* Diieetions *r ,Use: For -Veteriinary use,
.p.enfuls, to, a' gallon of. water.: As' a genealshDisinfectant. andt De-
*.nda;etr ,teuiliming Instruments, add two- tablespoonfuls to a: gallon of
|i..eely. -spray .or sprinkle' the- solution, or apply with cloth'or. scrubbing
S onI-the label, were false. and misleading, and' by reasontlhereoft the
g labeled so asto deceive, and mislead the purchaser, since thepd luct
4.,iea, in .. proportion greater than, 14 percent;. contained afottre nJbt
i amey,- .glycerinei; woudi not sterilize instruments; aud, waws-not am
ect[mt, when useds as directed.. : .. ..
$948.. a plea o...guiltg was.entered aSd -the ceurt imposed a- fine of
A. ,e one.; $50 on count two; andg,costs amounting -to $20: ... "
rtaaxr of "f^ W tange Truaect1iller Concentrate." It. S. v. Worthwest
$CtfsO .ngComS. Prfa'bf uilty. tne 9i. (t. & F: No: 2299;. 1.
.riY8N1943, the United Sttestatt'ltheYjo fIW DistfietOf-Ndrth Dakota\
ion ^,.repqt by the Secretary of Agriculture,, fted in the district court an
*.en. aWMt the' Northwest Insecticide Company, alleging shipment in
.e1p.qee G oCn n ,out May 11, 1942, fmti-Farge3 N. Dast., into the
Mointana. of a quantity of' "Revange Insect Killer Concentrate," which
ibraxdedtinsectidide tin the leanngof the Insecticde Act of 191O.
"o-ctt..:- allge, t@.i'1 bea ilisbranded- in that --the sta dmnt.,, "Spedal
f.l Xct.k&. Tvian ;1rf.&Ji^1 -.fnlawo-nsa Tn..* r ...a 'Rmr.ii0,n irn ^ RttlIl^


- .~21* **!~: k
I.. 4. ..c.* ..


141 a
1 79.
S. .

No. 2

-. I C *
I ~' *. x. h~ Sit;
II.~ .t.
- ~I' .
a 1NSi~EWYT1CLDE AC? ; ~
I *r. *~

II insects, would not act as a.fumigant in bulk grainn.
insects. h- In
April 7, 1943, a plea of guilty was entered and the court

md twauli7' ii
4V 'r ~

Adulteration ahd misbrnding of "Hopkins ro Brand-
Adulterati Con entrated misbrandino 20" U. S v "Hopkins Crow Brands of-,
tract Concentrated No. 20." U. S. v. 3 five-gallon cans of "Us It
Brand Pyrethrum Extract Concentrated No. 20." Default dcneq
demcnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F..No. 2313.' 1,.l
amination of "Hopkins Crow Brand Pyrethrum .Extract Cop
0" showed that the product contained 0.82 percent pyrethrinfr
ially less pyrethrins than a pyrethrum extract concentrated-l
in =* '
m .m. .....
April 14, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern F
ia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed izii,
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 3 five-gallon cans of S
Brand Pyrethrum Extract Concentrated No. 20," at Augu'sta, Ga.,

that the produ

ct had been shipped in interstate commerce,

* 'WI

, on or abo

ns & Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y., and chi
and adulterated insecticide within the mean

leged to be adulterated in that its strength
ed standard and quality under which it was
hrum Extract Concentrated No. 20," whereas'

al to a pyrethrum extract c
?ged to be misbranded in th

at the


Extract Concentrated No. 20," borne on the label affixed to es
the product, was false and misleading and, by reason of t
product was labeled and branded so as to deceive and misled
since the product contained less pyrethrins than should be p
designating it as a pyrethrum extract concentrated No. 20.
On July 8, 1943, no claimant having appeared, judgment of
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product
1880. Adulteration and misbranding of "Aeradte" and "Bid-
Henry V. Smith, trading as H. V. Smith & Compan
Fine $100. (I. & F. No. 2307. I. D. Nos. 5919 and 5920

Analyses of samples of "Acracite" and "Rid-U-Roach" showed
contained 31.86 and 16.43 percent, respectively, of inert ingred
On May 24, 1943, the United States attorney for the Distr
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in

an information against Henry V. Smith, doing business unclde
of H. V. Smith & Company, alleging shipment in interstate
about September 24, 1942, from St. Paul, Minn., into the State
of quantities of "Acracite" and "Rid-U-Roach," which were adi
branded insecticides within the meaning of the Insecticide Ac
Adulteration of the products was alleged in that the stren
each fell below the professed standard and quality under which

since the product "Acracite" contained r
uct "Rid-U-Roach" more than the 10 perch
following statements appearing on the lal




Sodium Sulphate ... ..----_-
O,.A4...v fm r fl^n rbn faj

-.4 wSt

lia ..~a
LlflgJ *'"-t..^*

hold, .

No. 20. .ef:
ment, "Pya.e
ich can.:qt&

:.i4. mEw
- V


* '.riL:"'. ~
* j~tr -.

he state .
sad the.put
resent- to w..WU;
". S~ = ", ,t .,fEH "*E ...* ^
.... -"
be destrOe: ,."
-RPoath r
y. Plea o". -
.) .

that the rd*
ients. :
let of r
the distrie tEd
r the trade.fl4
commerce. .w
of North DkA

t of
*h t:

ore than the 12 percent
ent of inert in redients in

rated '4
1910.0 "
ani. pultty
hey wee .|
and the .
didantd '

g ,..
r- ..., l w :
"" ^ '-
,I. ..
-(Rid-U-Roach) I' .' t
Sodium Sulphate..M .................*....... '.......
Qnrl ;n.....N.'4Ig. .


5, 1943, by J. L. Hopki
it was a misbranded
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was al
fell below the profess
it was labeled "Pyreti
possess a strength equ
The product was all



* "* *(:* .*'*a 4..:

L o. ,o.. NOrwooa, unOhio," Dome on mne. lael,,
I reason thrro6f, the product was labeled so as
., rea" on threof, The p ".
rs, since it contained less than 5.25 percent
'e an a'94.75 percent of inert ingredients; it
active disinfectant when used as directed; and
lie.Aetna Chemical Products Co.
ving been ndateted,. the court, on, June 5, 1942,
mbnia ittih., ]jdna Witticb, 'Fred L. Schlicht
ihf Sclhlichte on' each of counts one and two
on cot two was suspended. Dismissal of thb
pas tdketi as tb Fred L. Schlichte,,Jr.

were ause
to deceive
of... sodium
would nt
it..had ,no
imposed. .a
e,, Mildre.
of the in-

e suit by. a

i. fl o. a.nd misbranding of,."New Cino-Tox 20 To 1 Insecticide Cn.-
.ie.WI" ^. -'t. 1' flve-gallon'ian of "New Cino-Tox 20 To 1 Inseetdt
V .t ed' Defatult decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destrue-
..Bf. (XL & F1'. No.2322. .,D, N o. 5734.) '
bf'"New Cino-Tox 20 to' 1 Insectteide Concentrate" showed .that
:~f.tgu ffsl~_ita of ihineral oil of the. nature'of deodorized kerosene, an
anoa.te,'Wvery small: amotint of chlorinated compound, and coloring
."^ deficient in toxieants essential to give it sufficient
,w s.kwrrnht-'repesehting if as- a t0 to- i concentrate.:
1,~ 3,'"the United Stat& attbrm'ey for the ZDistrict of Columbia,
S.. rtby the Secretary of Agriculttite, field 'in the district court
l.. itdrA and cbddemnation of 1 .five-gallodfcans. of "New Cino-Tox
|^.||'... ecenatrae,.". at Washington, D.. ., alleging that the product
md ini.ntewtate commerce, on dor abbut ApirTif 15, 1943, by the Cino
. ... e -: om= Chidriatti,Ohio, .ad,.chargizg that it was a mis-
,.l adttlted lneetictde within theb meanltng of the Insecticide Act
.i ,.." ..:t I. II
S... wet was tieged to beiadulterated.inathat its strength and purity fell
M DEr0&es., standard aud quality under which it was sold, since it

.-*> tendca^ 'i:T- S ;--.: I -t77
n.ItAo tdf. 577 a
x X" T J'" -" ,. e .. ,
j M r ., 4
i," I .. i T l. eac." ?. I.. I*** F re ..
f-* I --i-- t% r.*L.. Sdmflth, .a.m.. .tUchtc,
andhl1imWWicttIdl^oiCS'an. tra..n atflhe. hlite Oak
: llg t ltS ,m .eauh Afendait, e Fred L.
fae X $ .on eachi:.f counts Jte.. and two.. .TE fne on
a nd!: nd ,e Isit wi dLmissed as .t red L.
r '! .. ^^" ..''.,? .., ': "' ," = ",- "*, :" i-i .,
4S rlea showed that e prod .. contained .4 percent
Lq--' h 1.' '
e. Bates attbrty fdr, W-e.Southern tric of
r" ortiy t.he secretary: ofe Agricult re, filed I tid district
o.n againstt the above-nam.ed individuals, trading as the
r Co., aieing shipment in interstate commerce, on or about
Srom Gin.cinnati,. Ohio, into the State of Kentucky, of a
each," ,.Which was an adulterated an.l misbranded fungicide
the TI$recticide A~t of1910. ., .
alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and., purity
.sed standard and quality under which it was sold, since
lte Ingredient :. Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% I1iert In-
," whereas it contained less than 5.25 percent of.: sodium
Than .75 percent of inert ingredients. "
Lieged tdhe misbranided in that the statements; "Active Ingre-
chlorite,, o.5.25%o Inert Ingredients 94.75% *
Disinfe"aft.. Germicide Sick Room: All
' cleaned at proper intervals with a solution of three table-
Bleach o each quart tdf water Manufactured: by
fl ** a. -p a *




Ar.. A

,1883. Misbranding of "Aneenoloid Cartride and PalAd rM
T. Henry Lerel, Jr., trading a. 'the Hy-Grad 'olladMaL.
Plea of guilty. Fine $100 on mount one; $100 om eoifM

pended sentenee on counts three, four,
1. D. Nos. 2470 and 2472.)
On June 24, 1943, the United States attorney
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of
court an information against Henry Lerch, Jr.,
the Hy-Grade Colloidial Insecticide Co., alleging
on or about June 8 and July 27, 1942, from West

SAve, and ta. .. &A.4

for the Eastern Di.
Agriculture, filed in .
an individual doing
shipment in interstate
Hempstead, N. Y...I

of Connecticut, of quantities of "Arsenoloid Cartridge" and "JapolOit,
which were misbranded insecticides within the meaning of the Insec]
1910. .
The "Arsenoloid Cartridge" was alleged to be misbranded for the
the statements, "Arsenic in water soluble form expressed as meta

(As) not more than 0.125%.
and "Hy-Grade Hoze Gun
spraying for chewing insects
Grade Hoze Gun Insecticide
were false and misleading
since the product contained
0.125 percent, expressed as
than the equivalent of 0.38

Equivalent to Arsenate Pentoxide (A

Arsenoloid Cartridge
when used as directed,'
Cartridge No. 7 Arsei
and tended to deceive
water soluble arsenic
metallic arsenic, and

(Lead Arsenate) T.
' borne on the lal eai
noloid," borne on fil
anid mislead the t'i
in a proportion sgrei
more water sOUabW i

percent of arsenic pentoxide, and would ii

chewing insects when used in the Hoze Gun, and, when used in
would not be a satisfactory insecticide.
The "Japoloid Cartridge" was alleged to be misbranded in that the
"Hy-Grade Hoze Gun Insecticide Cartridges Kind of Cartridge, No

Read Spraying Directions," borne on t
Beetle Spray when used as directed. *
so as to wet the legs and under side of t]
in chamber of Hoze Gun, attach same
Japanese Beetle Spray Hy-Grade Hoze
label, were false and misleading and tend


carton, and "Useful as
* For best results, spray 1
beetles. Directions: Indet
hose, turn on water aai
un Japoloid Cartridge," bo
to deceive and mislead thai

since the product, when used as directed, would not control Japanes.b ,i
On July 6, 1943, a plea of guilty was entered and, on July 15,. a fiie:;.
was imposed on count one; $100 on count two; and a suspended s.
given on counts three, four, five, and six. .
thE .1& : "
1884. Aduniteration mald mulbranudlng of anadelP esoe E*enue
U. 5. v. J. E. CatudeIl, trading as the Athenm Seed -.-
guilty. Fine $100. (I. & FI. No. 2320. 1. D. No. 6615.) .
Examination of "Caudell's Botenone Sulphur Dust" showed that MWMZ
contained 1.53 percent of derris resins (including 0.46 percent of
7.24 percent of sulphur, and 91.23 percent of inert ingredients. t 4il
On July 12, 1943, the United States Attorney for the Middle Distitdrf(
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed "m the d-istrslti

an information against J. E.
leging shipment in interstate
Athens, Ga., into the State o
Sulphur Dust," which was an
meaning of the Insecticide Act
The product was alleged to
below the professed standard
labeled, to wit;:

Caudell, tra
f Alabama,
of 1910.
be adultera
and quality

ding as the Athens Seed Cow
on or about September 1, 1i
of a quantity of "Caudei,:
and misbranded ineetidfr

ted in

".75 Per Cent Rotenone

that its strength ad' p!I
which It wae sMld, uis

* S *..:

* 4r; .. .1:!

: '. .k ,.* '*e ..t*)uan 'me;q ,. "
.* .. *... '...
:... i," .. ".,4 "" *
'.... also.. e. aga eisuckng, and c ewng insecs
... "fti pd: ell's ",R.tnone .Sulplhnr :Dust: ma. be ap-
"" i" prdpbl 'whe' plants are: dam with dew for 'bebtt* anchor-
tg taken t.Ie.dus covers the underside of .the tliage as
as mapy i"pects fAe& from the bottom. Application ."ary as
'asbould goetned on amount of infestati'on, size of plant, and
tp" borne m the label, were false and m leading and tended
." ."...d
.xuWaeid purcHiasers, since it contained less than 0.75 percent of
..Wit 2.25 percent of total derris resins, less than 10 percent of
er.e than 8775 percent of inert ingredients, and the product,
SIteced, wouldT not be effective against all sucking and chewing
i.plea o u was entered and a fine o was imposed
|E|93,.eplea of guilty was entered and a fine of $100 was imposed

mj.non0. and mtsbrandlng of "New Cino-Tox 20 To 1 Insecticide Con-
p'.U.'fi S. v. 6 five-gallon cans of "New Cilo-Tox 20 To 1 Insectl-
.oncentrate." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
S...n,. (I. & P.'No. 2321. I. D. No. 5733.)
apf "New Cino-Tox 20 To 1 Insecticide Concentrate" showed that
pted of mineral oil of the nature of deodorized kerosene, an
", .itate, a very small amount of chlorinated compound, and coloring
I|,inateriaUlly deficient in toxicants essential to give it sufficient
twtant representing it as a 20 to 1 concentrate.
1D3, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland,
report by'the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
aizure and condemnation of 6 five-gallon cans of "New Cino-Tox
de Concentrate," at Baltimore, .Md., alleging that the product had
in interstate commerce, on or about, February 24 and March 15,
1o Chemical Company, from Cincinnati, Ohio, and charging that
ranked and adulterated insecticide within the meaning of the
of 1910. .
;wg alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
sed standard'and quality under which it was sold, since it was

GIno-Tox 20 TQ 1 Insecticide
.hb.::equal to -a commercial 20
K*. alleged to be misbranded
.ecticide Concentrate," borne
'.#oduet, .was false and mislead
Is.lbeled. and branded so as to
Seit purported and represented
eetrate, whereas it did not p
ctinflecticide concentrate.
**, .1948, no claimant having aj
te as entered, and it was ordez


Concentrate," whereas it did not
to 1 insecticide concentrate.
in that the statement, "New Cino-

on the label affixed

to each can,

ng and by reason of this statement
deceive and mislead the purchaser,
'd that the product was a 20 to 1
possess a strength equal to a com-

ipeared, a decree of condemnation
red that the product be destroyed.

JUDGMENT 1871-1885

N. J. No.

N. J.No.

a -- -- -
-- ~-nn


;a.o-. -..i.-----------
EaIrtridje am! IJapolold

1: reh ..;t. __.. -- .
Co o l an Insecticide
-1..- .- -- -- -- ---- -. wA C,. t .A.u.. Tf. n..a4 .-


New Cino-Tox 20 to 1 Insecticide Con-
Cino Chemical Company-....
Revange Insect Killer Concentrate:
Northwest Insecticide Company.
Savaday Wash:
Barton Chemical Company___.
Solut. Cresol Compound (Saponated
I Solution of Cresol) U. S. P.:
Anthor Serum Company-..---..
mL...-a fkEl -






1111 1111 I I 1111 111 1111 111 11111 111111 I
Illnlll3 1262lll ll8582 0lll llllllllllllllll
.3 1262 08582. 5080

* '- l4

4 A .1

* *14

* ..

., ,., .1"~
* 1'-
* tfl K

* (..
I *~ .1.4'.
t.. *1


. *"

. .*

* .. H:'o

ft .v4 .." g

.: *: ..*mi
** w^ ..

.*.,. ,~

* .. 1..

~i tw '~ '~



.1 +~

*, H

k::,,. I
.4. a.
S1.j *1.-