!EY W.* ~ OS ~. ~ V -
1. 1 ~. -
OPFICE OF' 1
f! *. ',
I "*.'1 = .
r ~':~' I
-. IE! Ti ,
Sl:. -a" -
r- .,.:. ,: --,,.m.' u ,,
itt of I.f** ^*j '
:: *r ** -** .- 4.-". \
*: .* *. .. I .. .
A .. : k" : d".* *: ,*, :, *.*:
I ** ,: :* ..
"J "J'= l I^l :. ..
r.h. / -" .*;, i V.:
".' .. ... ",. .1.
THE I CI CI DEACT
B U IO -* ..*v '.H i.if*. .^ffb
THflE INSECTICIDE ACT
4? ~ V.
t' hereith rela
approved for pu
I. Staf 31
:o cases instituted in thle United Stat
ation as provided in section 4 ot the
*Wlk ," ;;' "waU :"P f U nSJ./ :
.. :-* : .. "
.^ J t t. ., r ': 1. -. I. -
". *- .
.my^ : ..1 *. .. *.* : e'. =*: .*' : '.
ci L" *" .xj .~ "i
l=atig: .t an i* *=- .. -M Dr Iie t id ."
; ... .. ,
"..:.. t .. Acting W ar Po ul." .""
S.4 .f sr 0 4O, et1944. .
-," 4 ='
.".:.: I .
*Iio'e~d Oibmpansivtag f.o -o Inuetfilde."
.toiwiee ndsbrndlCo pg of *Wrort -M.Ple a gadlty. flne
&- No. ... R '. J.1.a N o 41 1 ) ..= .. .. .
.4rthuMo ry' Izwectic*de" ..showd that .the product co
..phth8e~h lev 1L4,pecent #fi sulphur,,. ODO4 percent. of nicot
-: .. .. .
ag._.. .. *:.. ..::. a- ttorn --..r.
27 19 tie .Unit@d. Sta.s. attorney for the Northern Di
...,*~,ri.re t the;Seqcr.aty of Agricultre, filed in. the
anatn .aai. zfrhe .Kay-.e", Feed: Company, alleging shii
.ce,-Q~ :or. out .ebrury. 10; .1943, ,from, Sioux City, )
3 .gUtity of .Worh-Mor Iry Insecticide" which,
.m..ijed ,i=nseoidde.withn...-..the meaning of the In
^ ^ g S M :" '? "'3 1 :[ .* '" = = =' .
ti.: ,i .-:&.; I.t ,,
tplre adulterated .in.lhat it.; strength .and purity fel=
d1 and. quality under which it was solq, as shown by
. .e:. jngr.,dienta =- Napthalene 31% Creosote. Oil
t,. :-Iaert i atten:62%,'" whereas the product ,tfn-
ptMpht.alee, less than :5 percent..of. slphur, more
.ei... a at:pnly .the=nicotine in. the tobacco was
- ... i : : I* 4. "
o.b misabran in mThatthe statement. of ingredients,
a ragnash, i.ne= on-.the labels, was false and mis-
. ".be pro.uc.. w"s labeled and branded so as to
MHIEB F 1f*~'** f A j 4
'i ..ijf hetg pr* >o '.!:. u*' s :* "s a"s' '
-1.guil| .:"w "entered, and the court imps ed
i. (uther with' the; costs of prosecution.
inI x-of j .peer Brand JLie Powder." .,.... S. v.
*, l i ,
* tIa!.5~r.~j L~:~
Missouri, acting uponr
trict court an inform
in interstate eommer
Clarinda, Iowa, of a
adulterated and niis!
Act of 1910.
The product was
fell below the profess
by the following sta
Naphthalene 37~c T
product contained les
sulphur, less than 37
Sa report by the Secretary' of
nation against Ralph E. Shor
as Bartels & Shores Chemical t
ce, on or about April 2-14, 1942,
quantity of "Pioneec Brand L
branded insecticide, within the
alleged to be adulterated in th
ed standard and quality under'
tement: "Ingredients Sodium I
tobaccoo Flour 10% Inert Ingr
s than 2 percent of sodium fluo
percent of naphthalene, and mn
The product was alleged to
gredients, as quoted in the pre
and misleading and tended to d
contained less sodium fluoride,
ingredients than was claimed,
On June 10, 1943, a plea of no
a fine of $50.
e and misl
~ ...,. ."
"gpEj I* j "**
'.1 Af1r -.' ^*
Agriculture, .filed inm diL j ...,
es and Wilbur F..P els .
Company, alleging shi 'eat
from Kansas City, i t.
ice Powder" which V t4n .
meaning of the Insec .
at its strength. an .pury .
widch it was sold, .ihoWn
fluoride 2% p./0%
edients 41%," 'w-he
ir d lecs than In F
o at O thanLLJA .41 tr e
re than 41 perceutbi
d in that the statement
ph, borne on. the label, wtg
ead purchasers, since thi.
ess naphthalene, and 'toe
tobacco flour other thanb '
lo contender was entered, and t
1898. Adulteration and misbranding of "Zip Rotenone Dust."
C. Anderson and John C. Nichols, copartners trading as
man. Plea of guilty. Fine $150. (I. & F. No. 2305. I
-rH~Ic f- -
~ ~ ,., .
:he court ied
.: .i4 iu
3 i*.:* *H i
: .. ",, *,"
4 \. *J
I. S. v.. ig5ant
D. Nos. .8.^1 ...
5221.) : '
Examination of samples of "Zip Rotenone Dust" showed that this product? .,:
sisted of sulphur and organic material (cube root powder) together with a a,
amount of siliceous material. .i. ;
On September 30, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern ..iEticV
of Kentucky, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed ii:.
district court an information against William C. Anderson and John C. hNihIl.
copartners trading as Anderson & Spilman, alleging shipments in intorMs
commerce, on or about April 2, 194:1, and July 1942, from Danville, Ky.,.itt..Ab
State of Indiana, of quantities of "Zip Rotenone Dust" which was an adult.tetl.
and misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of-.l9:
The product shipped on or about April 2, 1941, was alleged to be mnisbran.4.Won-
that the statement, "Rotenone Dust," borne on the labels affixed to tt"l gs
containing the product, was false and misleading and, by reason there(4e
product was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the ti.
ment purported and represented that the product was rotenone Suat, whl.'
it was not rotenone dust but consisted of sulphur, powdered cube root,: ad
The product was alleged to be misbranded further in that the stfl~,.
so as to
of the pr
Use--Contains No Poisons," "1 LB net when packed," and "Zip B4
SGarden Pests," borne on the labels affixed to the bags contain
were false and misleading and, by reason thereof, the product was .
deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the statements purpobt.
ted that the product contained no poisons, that the bags.ea41
pound'net of the product, when packed, and that it would. eaitt
ests, whereas it was poisonous, each bag contained less than 1 po
oduct, and it would not control all garden pests. .
product shipped in July 1942 was alleged to be adulterated In the
strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under whlib
it was sold, as shown by the following statement: .
~J4 :4 Jr*u' :. ~h.TJGME~T~ .. *
Ih~' 1* NOTIES or
'.. .* ..
,Il Illl r i "t:. 1 I" : n "
..by areas stereo the pr was labeled and bra
o.. r; .-" ,.." aL:: br fl ,it:h"
i ead... ,the.-Bnhaser. .. '. ns.
c /infe~stlistiert rf Juy lfwas alleged to be misbran le
statementst, "Rotenone Dust 'Safe to Use-Contains No n,
Wh.ein. Packed," and "Zip Rot.one Dust for Garden Pests," b.. on
U1ed- tb. the bags, were false and- misleading and, by reason tliteof,
. I .b .
wt as labeled so as to deceive and. mislead the purchaser, sin the
iftpiported and represented that the product was roteneqe dust, tt
&no poisons, that the bags in which it was packed ec( 1 poui
Spro'duct, and that it would control all garden p'treas thf
s hot rotenone dust but consisted of sulphur, powdered cU root,
u. itaterial, it was poisonous1 each bag in which, it was packed cpn-
tan 1 pound net of ,the product, and it would not control all garden
"fL '15, 1944, a plea of guilty was entered, and the court imposed a
eoneach of three counts.
c .'i *. "v 3ht ,
"h:.i.* : ^
flsration and misbranding of "Pine O
eon.bo.ttles of "Pine Oil..Disi eetan
L a,: and destruction. (I. & F0No. 23
f "Pine Oil. Disinfectant" ishowe'
..tectant an.d water, the water conte
eiber 29, 1943, the United States atto
... report by the Secretary of Agri
lfji.g. seizure and condemnation of 6
lt" at Washington, D. C., alleging t
4- commerce, on or about July. 21, 194
IIsland City, N. Y., and charging tha
ated fungicide within the meaning o:
iet was alleged to be adulterated in
7j. professed standard and quality u
lbeled 'TPine Oil Disinfectant Coef.
. Inert Material 18-20%." borne on
4 ..coefficient of less than 4.0, consi
contained more than 20 percent of ii
Egt, was alleged to be misbratinded i
)4oef. 4-6FDA." "Contents .One G
/iJe Paper Man, 5830 Georgia Ai
Sd. misleading and tended to dec
ternents purported and represent
.nt,. that if had a phenol coefficier
1 gallon each,
ent of inert mate
Avenue NW., was
ed of pine oil disi
the bottles contai
an.20 percent of
acobs The .Paper
'1943. no claiman
t." Decree. of con
39. I. D. Nos. 7534
d that the produ
nt beinr 31.4 nerc
U. S. v.y 66 ote-
for the District of Columbia,
ure, filed in the district court
ie-gallon bottles of "Pine Oil
the product had been shipped.
y the Cole Laboratories, Ini,
ie product was a misbrandd
L Lth IIStkIcLt-icLiU A.to UL 1910
that (1) its strength :.and purity
tnder which it was soad; since, the
4-FIDA," and (2) in view of the
the labels, whereas the product
sted of pine oil disinfectant am.
aert material (water). .
n that the statements, "Pine Oil
allon," "Inert Material 18-20%,"
venue NW," borne on the labels,
nt of not
mislead the purchaser,
the product was pine
less than 4.0, that the
product did not contain
riat (water), and that Jacobs The Paper
the manufacturer of the product, whereas
nfeetant and water, did not have a phenol
nedless than 1 gallon each, the product
Sinert material (water), and it was not
Map, at 5830 Georgia Avenue NW.
t having .aueared, judgment of condemna-
;. : .. .": ,.
|d .torftu..was entered, and th& United States marshal was ordered to
!ihoteratot.nand'mlabranding of "Go-Feeto Wo. 2." U. S. v. Goulardu &
:t.4leM-.J.,. .. Plea of guilty., Fine of $200 each on two counts; suspended
Ssentenee on two other counts. (I. & P. No. 2324. I. D. Nos. 2528 and 6005.)
.is4 of samples of ."Go-Fecto No. 2" showed that the product consisted of
tax nitnn nfl arnl a.hmn+ Ri nornacnt fP ininaoal nfl Tfartorinlonatnl Pr-
(1) it was labeled, "In
gredients in excess of
Pine Oil Disinfectant,"
oil disinfectant, where
The product was all
Compound Pine Oil Di
on the label, were fal
was labeled so as to de
oil and mineral oil, the
and the combined inert
The product was all
Pecto No. 2:
2: is reco
40 parts of w
i yu ld not fo
.tirLtel upon a
V, li quoted s
of 200 each
10 percent; and, (2) tI
purported and uepreser
s mineral oil had been s
eged to be misbranded&
isinfectant" and ."Inert
se and misleading and,
?ceive and mislead p)urc
mineral oil was an iner
ingredients were in ex
eged to be misbranded
" and it contain
Le statement,'"Spe"ial dqo
ated that the product waa
substituted in part for pine
in that the statements, "
Ingredient: Water 1 "'
by reason thereof, tiC
hasers, since it consist '
t ingredient as well ai.it
cess of 10 percent.' / 3.
further in that the sta
o. 2 forms a uniform emulsion when mixed with water... ."
- is guaranteed stronger bacteriologically than Pure.Carbolic.
against a vigorous culture of B. Typhosus organism. Go-.Feeto
immended in the proportion of one (1) part of Go-Fecto No.
vater to aid in coI
a rough premises:
phosus A, Bacill
io. For Cuspidor
ng and tended to
rm a uniform emu
when tested agair
is an aid in combat
statements; and it
when used as dire
r 4, 1943, a plea o
on two counts an
:ing the spread
loors, Flush Bo
of infections by the
sriae, Bacillus enterit
Bacillus Coli, and.:.
wis, Urinals, etc.," W4
deceive and mislead purchasers, since th
lsion; was not stronger bacteriologically.
nst a vigorous culture of B. typhosus; eat
Lting infections spread by the organisms
would not disinfect cuspidors, floors, flu
f guilty was
entered, and the court imposed a .a:e
sentence on two other counts. .'.
s of samples
more than 14
e ofa Sample
more than 1
uary 4, 1944,
acting upon a
of "Dixie Pineen Disinfectant"
1 percent of water.
of "Dixie Supreme Creofectant"
0 percent water.
the United States attorney for
report by the Secretary of Agric
showed that the
showed that this
the Northern Di tttaEi
culture, filed in the i
court an information against Daniel H. Markstein, Sr., doing business untr. |
trade name of the Dixie Chemical Products Company, Ltd., alleging hyi
in interstate commerce, on May 27, 1942, and April 17, 1943, of quantittt
"Dixie Pineen Disinfectant," from Birmingham, Ala., to Purvis and Moss P
Miss., and, on or about June 7, 1943, of a quantity of "Dixie Supreme Creof
from Birmingham, Ala., to Pensacola, Fla., and charging that both products'
adulterated and misbranded fungicides within the meaning of the Insecticid
of 1910. ".. *...
The "Dixie Pineen Disinfectant" was alleged to be adulterated in pll
strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality und 1.
it was sold, as shown by the following statement: "Inert Matter Not O.v
*Water," whereas the product, in both shipments, contained more than 14ii
water .. :
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement of ingrediei
as quoted in the preceding paragraph, borne on the labels, was false andlaislea
ing and, by reason thereof, the product was labeled and branded so as t6e
Sand mislead the purchaser.
ration and misbranding of "Dixie Plneen Disinfectant" L~_ag
nme Creofectant." U. S. v. Daniel H. Markatein, Sr., doing 1t
rthe trade, name of the Dixie Chemical Products Company, LtAL
silty. Fine $150. (I. & F. No. 2338. I. D. Nos. 5154, 7612, and 76
- .,H. Ah
NOTICES OF IDGMENT 593 '
Chambers should contain *e solution and clothes and dishes used'
should be soaked with it beftrf being taken from the oonm,, using
I strength of 2 ounces or moe to the gallon o4.water. 'J. Suggest
more to the bucket of wa for rinsing water in washing," and
wid the room freely. Han Jolthes dipped into the solution around
ne'on the labels affixed to- e drums containing the product, 'were
leading and, by reason thereof, the product was labeled so as to
mislead the purchaser, since the statements purported and represented
[uct was a coal tar disinfecmnt; that it.would disinfect the articles
m the label when used in specified dilution, and that it would disin-
sea, as .directed, whereas, in: truth and in fact, the product, was
Disinfectant .but a mixtureof coal tar disinfectant and mineral oil,
vould not disinfect the articles enumerated on the label when used
, and it would not disinfect when used as directed.
1944, a plea of guilty was entered, and the court
ratlon and misbranding of icostiek Cart
cartridges each) of "Nicostiea Cartridge."
lture, and destruction. (I. &W. No. 2314.
n of two Samples of "Nicostick Cartridge
22.1 percent in one sample pnd 24.20 perc
,1943, the United States attorney for the
on a report by the Secretary of Agricultur
ug seizure and condemnation of 10 cart
ridge." U. S. v. 10 eartons
Decree of condemnation,
I. D. No. 6799.)
nt in th
, filed in
of-"Nicostick Cartridge," at Miami, Fla., alleging
[pped in interstate commerce, on or about May
SInsecticide Company, from K
vas an adulterated and misbra
[cide Act of 1910.
tick Cartridge" was alleged to
1l below the professed standard
ing statement: "Active Ingredi
ingredients: 20%," whereas the
as alkaloid and more than 20
;t was alleged to be misbranded
the preceding paragraph, bon
by reason thereof, the produce
nislead the purchaser.
ry 24, 1944, no claimant having
eiture was entered, and it was o
i States marshal.
that the nicotine
SDistrict of Flor-
the district court
that the product
19, 1942, by the
Lalamazoo, Mich., and charging that
ended insecticide within the meaning
Sbe adulterated in that its stre
d under which it was sold, as si
ents: N'icotine as Alkaloid 35%,
product contained less than 35
percent inert ingredients.
in that the statement of ingredi
ie on the labels, was false and
t was labeled and branded so
ig appeared, judgment of condemna-
3rdered that the product be destroyed
rx*ation and misbranding of 9,Paramount Boach Ponder" and "Para-
..l. nlt ,Chloroteen Disinfeetant." U. S. v. Paramount Chemical Company
.':"... -t ilr@poratio. Plea of nolo contender. Fine, $300. (I. & F. No 2329.
-. t :. : .DNos. 7349 and 7364.)
i"""ation :"of a.sample of "Paramount Roach Powder" showed that the prod-
HlP ite of 51.1 percent of sodium fluoride, about 0.08 percent of pyrethrins,
Sl per.eent Of inert ingredients. *
station of a sample of "Paramount Chl0roteen Disinfectant" showed that
.. t consisted of 0.69 percent of sodiujn hypochlorite and 99.31 percent
|. .... .. dients.
I'. -'I uary 2, 1944, the United States attorney for the Middle District of
<.^^ :. actingg upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed an informa-
, .:1' .. district court against the Par'amount Chemical Company, a corpora-
m a mm a, .a1
as quoted ii
ct was alleged to be misbranded ii
Sthe preceding paragraph, bqrne
, by reason thereof, the product
i that the statement. of ingre
on the labels, was >alse aui
was labeled so as tot-deceiv
amount Chloroteen Disinfectafft" was alleged to be adulterated ]
jf strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality unaier
,?L| was sold, as shown by the following statements: "Active Ingredien. :,;
^yypochlorite 5%" "Inert Ingredient 95%," whereas the prodiC
tamined less than 5 percent sodium hypochlorite and more that 95 per.nt
ihe product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement of ingt.
ateqotedm the preceding paragraph, borne on the label, and the statement
dllli" stenciled on the bottle, were false and misleading and, by reason tI
.the product was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, shi
pduct contained less than 5 percent of sodium hypochlorite and more tl
percent of iert ingredients and the net content of the bottle was les~ t
Sallo* A :
eOn March 6; 1944, he defendant entered a plea of nolo contender, al
court on March 7, 1944, imposedattfie of $300.
1i04.; Adulteratfon anI mnisbranding of "New-O Insecticide Spray." ,S.
q uart bottles, nore o less, of "New-O Insecticide Spray." Deere a
O demnalton) 4orteitre, anM destruction. (I. & F. No. 2341. I. D. N.o.:
: i ce mb tA 143 the United States attorney for the District"" of Mizt'
acting un ia report from the Seretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
Sbl praying seire nd condemnation of 98 quart bottles, more or le
S"New-O Insecticide Spray," at MSt Paul, Minn, alleging that the prodnu
been shipp* in idnterptate. commerce, on February 12 and February 19,
by, the ewO Products, Ic. fror Chicago, Ill., and charging that the pi
was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide within the meaning 0
Insecticide A.ct of 1910.,
heirodct was alegd to be adulterated in that its strength and 3
fltbelow the standard$ and quJity under which it was sold, as shown 1
stateiet, AA 0ATINGa (o. T. I.) ." which purported and reprej
that te pduct had an AA Rating (0. T. I), whereas the product did not
anAuaRatig (G. T. I.).0.
Te product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements:.
*"NewO Insecticde Spray Quick Sure Destroys all Insects
4nts Roaches Waterbugs Carpet Beetles AA Rating (0. T. L
Directios to Kl Flies, Ants Close doors. and windows,.dir
S: fthe spray up toward the ceiling. The room should be filled wift
and remain closed for 10-20 minutes. Repeat treatment as oftdn as
Jsary To il RoBaches, Waterbugs, Moths and Carpet B
ysra toronughlr at liberally with force around refrigerators, sis
Ar- a er 4. ai
. 4....,;, :
- .. V
1.4 ~.* *.
atl cabinets, around pantry shelves, into all cracks and crevices in. Umia0
ing and woodwork, pipe petiinga in walls and floors or wherever these !I-.
sects are likely to hide. Repeat treatment as often as necessary..-
thoroughly applying the spray as directed sweep up all trash and rubbtih
which includes dead and injured insects and burn them," :
I on the labels affixed to the quart bottles, were false and misleading ai..
ason thereof, the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive a3.,
ad the purchaser, since the statements purported and represented.that .th.
ict when used as directed was a quick jund sure insecticide spray, wonj .i
,p. nil nnnndr.^ir -f ine .td-c ..nn4-^ nhnfi/Ttc, n*CT nor'vre ..nnEw- hnl or. 41/m n%^nf i~v^a
NOTICES 0? 4
m m m m a
and m sbrandiing of "g$e C. T. Disinfectant." tU. S. y. Royal
inu Comnpany, a corpor ation. Plea of guilty. fe 9100.
308.:. L D.No, 8654.) -'' : .
i sample of "Roco C. 1. Tisinfectant" showed that t e'prod-
ercent" water. .
, the United States attorney for the Southern Distdict of
m a report from the Seretary of Agriculture, filed an infor-
ict court against the Royal Manufacturing Company, a cor-
hipment in interstate acDmmerce, on or about October 15, 1942,
to Lake City, S. C., of a quantity of "Roco C. T. Disinfect-
adulterated and misbranded insecticide and fungicide within
Insecticide Act of 1910. .-
.. Disinfectant" was alleged to be adulterated in that its
7. fell below the professed standard and quality under which
r of the statement on the label affixed to the drum, "Contains
i*'Inert Matter (Water)," whereas
B"ie matter (water). .
atywas alleged to be misbranded in
:e'.preceding paragraph, borne on
.' Jesding and, by reason thereof,
mislead the purchaser.
,h d1, 1944, the defendant entered
.of $100. I. .
...~x ": 2* ,
the product contained more that
that the statement of ingredients,
the label affixed to the drum, was
the product was labeled so as to
( ration and misbranding of "Old Witch The Magic Washing Fluid."
L 'v. 6 cartons, 12 one-quart bottles each, more or less, of "Old Witch
.Magic WVashing Fluid." Deacree of condemnation and destruction.
k&F. No. 2347. I.D. No. 7552.) .
i.of a sample of "Old Witch The Magic Washing. Fluid" showed that
contained 3.23 percent of sodium hypochlorite and 96.77 percent
ry 15, 1944, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia,
sa report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
h.a ing the condemnation and seizure of 6 cartons containing 12 one-
I t: each, more or less, of "Old Witch The Magic Washing Fluid," at
rn; D. C., alleging that the product had been shipped min interstate
:o or about January.12, 1943, by the Household Products Corporation,
i2%|ington, Pa., and charging that the product was an adulterated and
.fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
net was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
t*fessed standard and quality under which it was sold, as shown by
g statement: "Active Ingredients: Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by
ert Ingredients 94.75% by Weight," whereas the product did not con-
cent sodium hypochlorite and contained more than 94.75 percent
#t was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement of ingredients,
S;..:$he preceding paragraph, borne on the labels, was false and mis-
$ -, .*,. reason thereof, the product was labeled and branded so as to
; -fa*mislea4 the purchaser. ,
l Wh:4, 41944,: no claimant having, appeared, judgment of condemnation
-i~ture ..was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed
lited states marshal. -
.i tA y '" ,
mtMsration and misbranding of "Sodium Fluoride." U. S. v. Sylvia Salk,
individual doing business under the style and trade name of the Zal eo
.g)u9any. Plea of nolo contendere. fine $70. (I. & F. No. 2328. I. D.
5 t.l..; f
;*. ~ -
[N; .3., ,~J2!:. I,
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and
below the professed standard and quality.under which it was sold,.: in
statement on the labels,
..% : "
"Active Ingredients: Sodium Fluoride-------- ------
". ..: .
whereas the product contained less than 95 percent sodium fluoride, .1.t.
1.5 percent sodium silicofluoride, and more than 3,5 percent inert ingre.ietI. -
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement of ii.
asquot $in the preceding paragraph, borne on the labels, was false and mislea-
ad. byreoson thereof, the product was labeled so as to deceive and mislead
ic l e rinse.
SOn February 18, 1944, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendeiBe
the court imposed a fine of $35 on each of two counts.
1908. Adulteration and misbrandjng of "Miller
MilWe Ohemi o IfflI..| Plea of gull
1 No. 2316. I. TD No. 4591 Ro)os
E xaminatio of "Miller'e Roost Pai
5.taied 575 percent of nicotine sulphate (equivi
S2.2 percent of phenols, and 92.05 percent of ine
SOnJuytY 1$4, the United States attorney fc
i upo a report by the Secretary of Agricultui
C information against Miller Chemical Co., Inc.,
in interstate commerce, on or about Septembe
braska into the State of Iowa, of a qu
which was an adulterated and misbra
thel tde Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be adulte
below the pn.tessed standard and qu:
"Active Ingredients: Nicotine S ha
Phenol 2%. Inert Ingredients 86%."
f The product was alleged to be misb
the preceding paragraph, and the state
Poulty BRoosts and Coops Kills Lice
before fiag roosts areas dirty, elea
the lme thoroughly befo psntt" wi
of house but shut any above or behind
over theoosts to carry the fumes awa:
air for the birds The hdi idual po
himself. About ncue hour bet re birds
Use about one ounce to 12 feet. One
Pimitry lice hatch about one week's t
aferfirst appicatin to se if any youn
a second application of roost paint shoi
young lice will be killed before they h
first treatment is sufficient. We do not
chicks,' borne on the label, were false
and mislead the purchaser, since the p1
nicotine sulphate less than 5.91 percent
of inertsgred i anid. Mwenaged as
's Nicotine R
Ity. Fine $2
Loost Paint." U. S. :'.
0 and costs. (I. & Pi
" showed that the
?nt to 4.41 percent
the District of Nel
filed in the disti
maha, Nebr., alleg
4, 1942, from the
entity of "Miller's Nicotine Roost Paint" 2
ended insecticide within the meaning oft
'ated in that its strength and prty
rated in that its strength and purity ($l
ality under which
te 12%o Nicotine
d in thu
th Roost Pai
Iltryman is 1
go to roost, j
pint will tre;
g lice have h
uld be applied
ave a chance
t of nicotine
it was sold, nam
as alkaloid (5.1
at the statement, quoted ,i
r's Nicotine Roost Paftt orT
. Directions Shatke w* .
nt. Open windows in ftont
Do not allow drafts to b'J i
? sure to provide some hSD
best able to judge this Ar
paint the top side of roos
at about 300 feet of tfdsts.
should be examined 10 iO s
watched. If any are pt,
d immediately so- that t.i
e to lay eggs. Usuallftte
:his product for use on baby
ding and tended, to deceive
ned less than 12 percent of
, and mo
re than 86 percent
would not control chicken 1ice-
i 'tf. ..
.j i ..
^er.iiset' Mhthtyas a mi httided fungicide within the.jneaning
c"ideAct of 1910.
.$ .atJ. ..
.ct was' alleged to be misbraflled4 in that it was designate "fDeTox
.t and the statembrit, '"THis Stefizng Compoun De-Tox ..iier
flr pkz~ared agent for Sterilizi drinking Glasses, Bottles,. Receptacles,
tO toKill Bacteria De-ToS Sterilizer Kills Bacteria DairL gnd
SIristitutiuns Hospitals Cans, Pails, Strainers Reirve
li1. .trhsiug with cold water. "Cleanse with warm water and De-Tox
1Then just 'before using imme*e or rinse thoroughly inside surface
i 'ade up of 1 ounce of DeTos Sterilizer to each five gallons of
o the label, were false and misleading and, by reason thereof, the
.abz.eled as to deceive and mislead purchasers; since it was not a
would not sterilize or kill albacteria.
S..ws allegedly, to be misbranded further in that theo statements,
.:" wildnt trilz rkl l'atra
4 ..- ..b' eauc
H.. .... 67
.1 HE "
I 11 S. .! .
1 Part De-Tox
i, equivalent to
add one ounce
e label, and th
* all purposes ii
5, 1943, a plea o
Sterilizer to 10 pa
ng solution contai
e statement, "one
water makes a Sodium
.g 1(00) parts per million
each four gallons cold
llon," stenciled on the
Sand tended' to deceive
the product diluted with water as directed 'would
to Dakin' s Solution, nor one containing 100 parts
ne," nor would the resulting solution be an effective
i hospitals, and the net content of the bottle was
if guilty was entered, and the court imposed a fine
ion and misbranding of "Solarine Improved Bleach." U. S. v. 19
ach containing 24 one-pint bottles, more or less, of "Solarine Im-
Bleach." Decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
No. 2346. I. D. No. 7550.)
Sample of "Solarine Improved Bleach" showed that the product
percent of sodium hypochlorite and 96.33 percent of inert in-
ary 15, 1944, the United States. attorney for the District of Columbia,
| a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed ifn the district court a
g, seizure and condemnation of 19 cases, each containing 24 one-pint
'tbl br less, of "Solarine Improved Bleach," at Washington, D. C.,
ftl the product had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about
*. t1942, by the Solarine Company, from Baltimore, Md., and charging
oduct was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the mean-
p .nieeticidp Act of 1910,
.I:.IdUct was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
S.Iiprofessed standard and quality under which it was sold, as shown by
o wiig statement: "Active Ingredient: Sodium Hypochlorite 5%%. Inert
H tni 9%o%," whereas the product obtainedd less than 54 percent sodium
Iorite and more than 94% percent qf inert ingredients.
roductwas alleged to be misbranded in that the statement of ingredients,
in the preceding paragraph, borne on the labels, was false and mislead-
ify reason thereof, the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive
:d6 the pjtchaser. .
|. .h 22, 1944, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation,
., .and destruction was entered, apd it was ordered that the product be
S. bi the United States marshal.
NOTICES OF Ji
Vincent Barton--..-- -------
Clara Barton.... .. --- --
Barton Chemical Company---..
Dixie Pineen Disinfectant and Dixie
; Daniel H. Markstein, Sr ....
/Dixie Chemical Products Com-
pany, Ltd --. -..
Go-Fecto No. 2:
Goulard & Olena, Inc ..
;ifler's Nicotine ROost Paint:
*" Millgf Chemical Co., Inc ...
Wew-O in*Beticide Spray:
~Ne*-O Products, Inc --. .....
Nicostick Cartridge: -
Garden Hose Insecticide Com-
Old Witch The Magic Washing Fluid :
Rouaojd Products orp
Pnnop Roach ReoM a-xr
imoaunt Chloroteen Disinfectant:;
Paramount Chemical Company-
V._ ~ ^ ^ s
"1' ^ /< '*' / /: / ^ / J
SPine Oil Disinfectant: -
Cole Laboratories, Inc -- -.-
'Pioneer Brand Lice Powder:
Ralph E. Shores..........
Wilbur F. Bartels-- -.. _._.
Bartels & Shores Chemical .poman
pany . _
Roco C. T. Disinfectant: .. -
Royal Manufacturing Company
Sodium Flooride: .
Sylvia Zalk.- -........------ --
ZaJlco Company ...- --. ..---.
Solarine Improved Bleach: .
Solarine Company --..... --
Worth-Mor Dry Insecticide:
The Kay-Dee Feed Company-...
Zip Rotenone Dust:
William C. Anderson-.--
John C. Nichols ------.....-
Anderson & Spilman--- --
* .t:$f. ~
- LE ,<
... :. =
.*^ 5h: I
5 :: J .- :.
*-ile **." *
A..... h. *.
I..-.", :" ,:
Xim .. a .
I -.. *1~~
a. *:. .... *
I. *. *
... '.... *
ft j!XH4 ,.4
tI V *
"~'.h.:. -~ ant
a. ~ *,'r'*** *
WHIRi MAHRI"" .
I H 4~!. 2
.. ." ."
.r *** .
6 m ,.m m-
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08582 5106