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:
AA00008549:00045

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text


-1925 "

ted States Depart ent of A1
m a
WAR FOOD ADMINISTRA
i.
OFFICE OF MARKEtING SERVICES
'V
a ,

t..OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE INS

1911-1025

Cm
'of judgment herewith relate to eases in
courts and are approved for publication, a
de Act of 1910 (36 Stat. 331).


Issued April 1945

agriculture


TION


ECTICIDE


stituted in
is provided i


ACT




the United
n section 4


ASHLEY


SELLERS


stant War Food Administrator.


, January 81


1945.


qm and misbranding of "Granger '77' Chloro-D Powder." U. S.
.onnd Cana, More or Less, of "Granger '77' Chloro-D Powder."
ddeeree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2355. I. D.


sample of


"Granger


Chloro-D


of calcium hypochlorite 0.70 percent,


Powder"


showed


that


sodium phosphate 36.10


bonate of


sodium


wate~


of crystallization


gainedd less calcium hypochlorite than was


:ca ns containing the product
L i sed as directed was not


; the cans
effective


63.2(


stated on


were short weight
as a disinfectant


) percent.
the labels
; and the
nor as a


iL25, 1944, the United States attorney for the District of Delaware,
pib. a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
Pttsg: seizure and condemnation 4f 35 7-pound cans, more or less, of
7? V..tloro-D Powder," at Wilmington, Del., alleging that the product
shippedd in interstate commerce, On or about March 21, 1944, by the


ducts Company, from Trenton, N. J., and ce
adulterated and misbrandeal fungicide within
-.1 la_ ak*


barging


that


the meaning of


qt ,was alleg
oI~cssedstan
g ..0i statement
. ~toral10 a%
ypfl~orite s


ed to be adulterat'
4ard.or quality, u


: :"Calcium


~tteru


Hypoc


a


eas the.,pr
ingredient!


in that its strength or purity fell


r which it
'rite 2%


ruet contained
Other than c


was sold
Cleaning


less
alciui


, as shown by


Ingre-


Active


than 2 percent
m hypochlorite


q





600


INSECTICIDE


ACT


i.,LF.


trades, as a disinfectant. Chloro-D serves the dairy as an effec-
tive germicide and as a disinfectant when used according to direc-
tions For disinfecting other dairy equipment use two lbs. Chloro--D
powder to 50 gallons cold water 'which represents 100 P. P. M. available
chlorine.
Chloro-D powder is non-corrosive to tinned metals, when properly cleaned
and rinsed with cold water .
After this operation disinfect the cleaned equipment in a cold- water solution
containing one ounce (measure cup full) of Chloro-D powder to 10 quarts
water. "t <
For hand and mzeIne nilking, dissolve one ounce (measure cup ll) of
Chloro-D powder to10 qUiarts warm water for washing milkers hands, the
cow's udder, and dipping the teat cups after milking each cow."
borne on the labels affixed to thee cans containing the product, were false and
misleading and, by reason thereof, the product was labeled and branded so as
to deceive and mislead the purChaser, siee the statements purported and repre-
sented that the product, when used as diected, was a disinfectant or an effective
genricide for the purposes set forth onl t0abels, and that the product diluted
with water as directed represented 100 parts per million of "available chlorine,"
whereas the product, when used as directed, was not a disinfectant nor an effec-
tive germicide for the purposes set forth on the labels, and the product diluted
with water as directed would not give a solution containing 100 parts per million
of "available chlorine."
The product was alleged to be misbranded further -in that the statement,
"Smiall Package, 7 Lbs.," borne on the labels affixed to the cans containing the
product, was false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the
purchaser, since the cans contained less than 7 pounds of the product
On May 15, 1944, no claimant having appeared, decree of condemnation and
destruction Was entered and the United States marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.
1912. Adulteration and isbrandlg of "Del-Tox." U. S. v. 156 One-Quart Botties,
More or Less, of -Del-Tox." Default decree of condemnation and destrue-
tion. (I. & F. No. 28351. I.D. No. 7559.)
Examination of a sample of "Del-Tox" showed that this product contained less
sodium hypochlorite and more inert ingredients than were stated on the label.
On February 16, 1944, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a


libel praying seizure and condemnation of 156 one-quar
of "Del-Tox," at Washington, D. C., alletng that the pr
in interstate commerce, on or abott Apri 4 and August
Chemical Company, from Baltimore, Mdi and charging t
adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the meaning
-.cs --r


t bottles, more or less,
oduct had been shipped
5, 1941, by the Del-Tox
hat the product was an
g of the Insecticide Act


tL e 1r0 .V o
The product was alleged to be aqulterated in that its strength or purity fell
below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold, as shown by
the following statement: "Active Ingredients Sodium Hypochlorite 5% Inert
Ingredients 98% By Volume," whereas the product contained ess l-
sodium hypochlorite and more than 95 percent inert ingredients.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, as quoted
in the preceding paragraph, borne on the labels affixed to the bottles containing
the product, was false and misleading and, by reason thereof, the product was
labeleL and banded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
On March 22, 1944, no claimant having appeared, decree of condemnation and
ndntn tinnv was entted. nd the ITnitpd Sfates nrnrhal was dire t r ton ronflsant


-I. '


K




- .


~L '.. *
in .~ .4
-
.c;..k.:.~x~!k -*
4~%uIt4kw2&I
H r
* 4it~viLS* i*. .r
p.. ~I~* ~.


NOTICES


*.
OF :.'GMENT
OF ,.JDGMENT


601


,, e 9- 1943, by Prboxite Prodtxdts, Inc., from Brooklyn, N. Y., anid
'I,..:Et .that-the product was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within
B'ing-of the Insecticide Act of 1910.O
.1 pLroduct was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength or purity fell
*.w hetprofessed standard or quality' ander which it was sold, as shown by
;t. lbj!bwing statement: "Active Ingredipnt Sodium "Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt.
SIn gTedients 94.75% by Wt.," whereas the product contained less than 5.25
-ttof sodium hypochlorite by weight and more than 94.75 percent of inert
... ents by weight.
s...... product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, as quoted in
"..' ding paragraph, borne on the labels affixed to the bottles containing the
,. as false and misleading and, by reason thereof, the product was labeled
,il *so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
H.... ..[w M..refl 6, 1944, no claimant having appeared, decree of condemnation and
.. ltion was entered, and the United States marshal was directed to destroy
ef'^L ***" .*i ""

.."..zte ration and misbranding of "Pine Oil Disinfectant." U. S. v. Cole
-I :.' Laboratories, Inc. Plea of guilty to counts one and four; counts two and
H.f. ? 'three dismissed. Fine $500. (I. & F. No. 2348. I. D. Nos. 7534 and 7540.)
'l:l: yses' of two samples of "Pine Oil Disinfectant" showed that the water
Sate~.,of the product was 32.4 percent in one sample and 31.4 percent in the
.pS:' ):stie remaining ingredients being pine oil and soap. The phenol coefficient
t :id g..aduct was 3.3
H"H l:-ce-: 19, 1944, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New
e -t.actingm upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
-: U tM'*.an.information against Cole Laboratories, Inc., a corporation, alleging
;'.' |it in interstate commerce, on or about July 21, 1943, from Long Island
''., to Washington, D. C., of a quantity of "Pine Oil Disinfectant" which
adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecti-
f, i- 1910o
he:,erQdtuct was alleged, in count one of the information, to be adulterated
Su*t-atf,.tstrength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under
4lcIi -it, was sold, as shown by the following statements:
"':. "Contents: One Gallon


-.4


PINE OIL
DISINFECTANT
COEF. 4-6 F. D. A.
Inert Material: 18-20O
JACOBS
THE PAPER MAN


S-~' r5830 Georgia Avenue, N. W.
,. WASHINGTON, D. C.
V .. I ** Phone Ge., 2880
S.. WHOLESALE
: .:: Paper-Bags-Boxes---Cups-Tissues-Twines
'jf.:. .:;-. !Janitor Supplies"
* s :*": :! .: I .
; ..s..the product had a phenol coefficient of less than 4-6 F. D. A. and con-
.t ied more than 20 percent inert material.'
t P.heproddict was alleged, in count four Of the information, to be misbranded
j that the statement, "Jacobs The Paplr Man, 5830 Georgia Ave., N. W.,"
br!tei.,i the labels affixed to the bottles containing the .product, was false and
tn~aie2 oRI-nitf onA nn n 4nm~j Annniw ^aaw nA nj4 n Ab^1f^ ifln .rnn^.nlnn -^ jun.. nj.an Ltn nn J-ae..





INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. 3.. I. r.


affixed to the bottles contaiili he product. It was not
iluted with water as directed t would not give a soluti
per million of "available chlorine" and would not be a
for use about th bhome;
On .December 28, 1943, the United 4tes attorney fori
of Iowa, acting upon a re 5rt by the Secretary of Agricult
court a libel praying seizure and ufnnation of 132
6 one-half gallon bottles, more or less, "Chloro-Sau,"
alleging that the product had been shi ed in interstate
June 10, 1943, by the C. G. WhitlQck Comnany,(from Sprin
that the product was an adulterated andaisbranded fungi
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its
below the professed standard or quality under which it
the following statement: "Sodium Hypoehlorite 5.25%. I
By Weight," whereas the product contained less than
hypochlorite and more than 94.75 percent of inert ingredid
The product was alleged to be misbra ded in that the
the preceding paragraph, borne on the labels affixed to


I
a sterilizer, and when
on containing 100 parts
n effective disinfectant


Sthe Northern District
ure, filed in the district
cases, each containing
at Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
commerce, on or about
field, Ill., and charging
cide within the meaning

strength or purity fell
was sold, as shown by
nert Ingredients 94.75%
5.25 percent of sodium
cents by weight.
statement, as quoted in
the bottles containing


the product, was false and misleading and, by reason thereof, the product was
labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
The product was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements:
"Chloro-San has many uses as a disinfectant and deodorizer and may be
used freely about the home. Available Chlorine solution of 100 parts per
million is prepared by adding 1 ounce of Chloro-San to 4 gallons of water,"
and "Sterilizer"
X-
borne On the labels affixed to the bottles containing the product, were false and
misleading and, by reason thereof, the product was labeled and branded so as
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the statements purported and repre-
sented that the product diluted with water as directed would give a solution
containing 100 parts per million of "available chlorine" and would be an effective
disinfectant for use about the home and that the product was a sterilizer,
whereas th@ product diluted with water as directed would not give a solution
containing 100 parts per million of availablee chlorine" and was not an effective
disinfectant fot use about the hokne, and it was not a sterilizer.
On January 27, 1944, no claimant having appeared, decree of condemnation
and destruction was entered, and the United States marshal was directed to
destroy the product.
1916. Misbranding of "Perfunme. U. S. v. Acme Chemical Company, a Corpora-
tion. Plea of nolo contender. Fine $50. (I. & F. No. 2330. I. D. NQ
7152.)


Examination of a sample of "Perfumo* showed that this product consisted of
96.8 percent water, 1.2 percent ethyl alcohol, 1.4 percent phenolic bodies, and
0.3 percent perfume. The label affixed to the bottle containing the product did
not bear the required statement of ingredients, and the product would not kill
bacteria or disinfect as indicated by the label.
On November 29, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Acme Chemical Company, a corporation,
alleging shipment in interstate commerce, on or about June 15, 1943, from
M waukee, Wis., to Downers Grove, Il, of a quantity of "Perfumo" which was
a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of an
W- n J ~-lf F f nff S-f. '*ej- t^ nK ^a :Wn h n -L n*- S- Jb. J -k't. : n t a tE.J.&> :'a^ i .J *a j ---- --J_1 .-- 3 *^- Jh a a. I-^^




S
I-
ShlAO2fl I
C


NOTICES


OMENT


603


roul.- ndt kill obnoxious odors
"efaitt did not possess germici
i^a.lin its germicidal action.
.O. April 22, 1944, a plea of no
a se.
.'1L :lbrpanding of "Formozc
:-a?. .Under the Style and Tr
* ** g guilty. Fine $300. (I.
*i:^ ... ""' "* /
. a]yses of two samples of "
^jS4jvely, 1.35 and 1.79 perch
:.-. material, and 97.37 and 97
Qbe ljelp affixed to the conta
_p..4 ..tt of ingredients. The p
e owb^otdinifect when used as


Forn
!ent
,.10 I
miners
rodu
dirn


ozone" showed I
of formaldehyde
percent of water
Sof the product
ict was not a disi
acted on the label


that the product contained,
, 1.28 and 1.11 percent of
and perfume by difference.
did not bear the required
nfectant and germicide and


."; 'A"pri 24, 1944, the United States attorney for the District of M
. .atWigg bpon g report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
: .fof6mation against Henry V. Smith, doing business under the style a
Mi .me.of Hi V. Smith & Company, alleging shipments in interstate c
.2~or about September 21, 1942, and October 7, 1943, from St. Paul,
c ^:. so, bIll., of quantities of "Formozone" which was a misbranded
..i .the ifteaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
fTle product was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partiE
inert substance (water), which would not prevent, destroy, repel, or
tfun(ugi( bacteria), and the name and percentage amount thereof were n
!i.aiuly 'and, correctly on the label, nor, in lieu thereof, were the n
4.percgntage amount of each and every ingredient of the product having f
(b..etericidal) properties, and the total percentage of the inert su
?. present therein, stated plainly and correctly on the label.
-:. Thenproduct was alleged to be misbranded further in that the st
0.borne qn the labels, affixed to the containers of the product, were
misleading and, by reason thereof, the product was labeled so as to de(
..mislead the purchaser, since the statements purported and represented
.ptgoduct-was a disinfectant and germicide and would disinfect when
.iitected, whereas the product was not a disinfectant and germicide a
. Aot disinfect when used as directed.
S.On April 21, 1944, a plea of guilty was entered, and on May 22, 1944,
.Imposed a fine of $300.
1,. 1918. Adulteration and nmisbranding of "Oil Emulsion." U. S. v. 4 Drums
:" .'. matpely 54 Gallons Each), More or Less, of "Oil Emulsion."
-:, -'" .. 'decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2342. I. D.


.EExamination of samples of "Oil Emulsion
mineral dil, water, and small amounts of r
i.odiet in one of the drums was adulterate
; T.he.product was not an emulsion and their
S an Jose scale and leaf roller when used as
:.. .t niebruary 14, 1944, the United States E
i.sSisSippi, acting upon a report by the S
'iJtSrct court a libel praying seizure and
ia. atei:y 54 gallons each), more or less, of "O0
*. that the product had been shipped in in
1ary 19, 1948, by Schaeffer Bros. & Powel
SJtIs, Mo., and charging that the product
K i.aecticide within the meaning of the Insecti
I3a.he product in one drum was alleged to
i,. 4! %ity fell below the professed standard


" showed t
otash soap
d; it contai
before would


hat the product
and sulfonated
ned 74.3 percent
d not be effective


[innesota,
; court an
nd trade
commerce,
Minn., to
fungicide

lly of an
mitigate
ot stated
ame and
ungicidal
ibstances,


atements
!alse and
ceive and
that the
used as
nd would


the court

(Aproxi-
Default
No. 7688.)
contained
oil. The
of water.
e against


directed.
attorney for the Southern District of
secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
condemnation of 4 drums (approxi-


il Emulsion" at Jackson,
terstate commerce, on o
. Manufacturing Compa
iWas an adulterated and
dide Act of 1910.
:ibe adulterated in that
or quality under which


Miss., alleg-
r about Feb-
ny, from St.
misbranded


its strength
it was sold,


and their, source, bacteria; it was not a disin-
dal power }'and it was not 18 times as strong as

lo contender was entered, and a fing of $50 was
.H
me." U. A. v. Henry V. Smith, Doing Business
'ade Name of H. V. Smith & Company. Plea of
& F. No. 2352. I. D. Nos. 5973 and 9330.)





I SECTICIDE ACT N N.; I. P.

< ":Ol+vfmUlolf use 2.4 Gallons of Scalex to 976 Gallons of Water for
ahJoseSa U*se Ialous Scalex to 92.5 gallons of water for Leaf
oler. For Peaches. Ue with 4-4-50 Bordeau solution to control .

borne on the labels affied to the d containing the product, were false and
misTheaing ani, byreascli tehduct was labeled and branded so as
to deceive and aale he aser e the statements purported'and rep-
reen ted that the prodct was an oil e1sion and that the product, when used
directed uld ttL San4se sl e d leaf roller, whereas the product
was not an oil emulsiont. and, when u as directed, it would not control San
Jogse 'scale and leaf roller.
On May 2, 1944, no claimant having appeard, decree of condemnation and
destrtioin was entered, and the Unite States marshal was directed to destroy
the product.
1919. MaSbrandltng of "Klef IT. S. r. Klens, Ine, a Corporation. Plea of
Guilty. Fine $25. (IL & F. No. %332. I. D. No. 7105.)
Examination of a sample of "Klens" shewed thftt the product consisted of 90.9
percent water, and trisodium phosphate coloring matter, and probably a very
small amount of a phenolic compound. The labels affixed to the bottles con-
taining the product did not bear the required statement of ingredients. The
1 product was not an antiseptic or gereicide and wo ild not kill all germs or
sterilize when used as directed.
On December 15, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District
of Florida, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture. filed in the
district court an information against Klens, Inc., a corporation, alleging shipment
in interstate commerce, on or about January 16, February 10, and March 9, 1943,
from Miami, Fla., to Chicago, II., of quantities of "Klens" which was a mis-
branded fungicide within the meaning o the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The'product was alleged to be misbraided in that it consisted partially of an
inert substance (water), which would not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
fungi (bacteria), and the name and percentage amount thereof were not stated
plainly and correctly on the label, nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and per-


centage amount of each and every substance or ingredient
fungicidal (bactericidal) properties and the total percent
stances, present therein, stated plainly and correctly on the
The product was alleged to be misbranded further in
"Klens Antiseptic Kills Germs Sterilizes A
borne on the labels affixed to the bottles containing the pr
misleading and, by reason thereof thd product was labeled
deceive and mislead the purchaser, sincthe statements
sented that the product when used, as directed was an ant
and would kill germs and sterilize, whezess the product w
was not an antiseptic or germicide; it woad not kill all gei
sterilize.
On January 22, 1944, the defendant entered a plea of
imposed a fine of $25.


of the product having
age of the inert sub-
label.
that the statements.
ntiseptic Germicide,"
oduct, were false and
and branded so as to
purported and repre-
iseptic and germicide
hen used as directed
ims; and it would not


guilty, and


the court


1920. Adult ration and ndsbxandlng f "H iO" and "Pyrethrum Extract 20."
*U. S. v. Associated Chemits, Inc Plea of guilty. Fine $200 and costs.
(I.& F. No. 2337. I.. Nosa. 248 andp) s85
Ehmination of "Hi-Tox 20" showed tht this product consisted of mineral oil
f the nature of deodorized kerosene, a smifl amount of a chlorinated compound,
and coloring matter. It was not of a strength equal to a 20 to 1 compnercial
coatenetrate fly spray.






NOTICES


4.*.
9*-
I..
4O"
O 'VD
OF *UDGMENT


..- qiantity.:under which it was sold, as showbi by the state
. Hpmprted and represented that the standard or quality
-,t ^i. thte product possessed an effectiveness as an insect
:-.t,,:.'eommercial concentrate fly spray, as the term "Hi
U.. nerstood, in all insecticide trade circles, to imply a str
c. commercial concentrate fly spray, whereas the product v
.. 2to 1 commercial concentrate fly spray.
TEGe product was alleged to be misbranded in that the
.the preceding paragraph, borne on the label affixed to t
,..uct, was false and misleading and, by reason thereof,


, ..a.g.i'anded so as t
E., T.,.e'Pyrethrum E:
b : heainlterated in tha
4 tafty under which
S20, which purported
w' wassuch that the p
product was not "Py
b. had been substituted
yrethrum extract.
i : The product was a
the'precedting paragr
: product, was false an
and branded so as t(
On June 9, 1944, a
- $200 and costs.


) deceive and mislead
extract 20," shipped on
t its strength or purit
it was sold, as shown
and represented that
product consisted of "
rethrum Extract 20"


lent,
)f th
icide
-Tox
engtl
ras n


"Hi-Tox 20," which
e product was such
equivalent to a 20
20" was generally
h equal to a 20 to 1
lot as effective as a


statement, as quoted in
he drum containing the
the product was labeled


the purchaser.
or about June 10, 1I
y fell below the pro
by the statement "P
the standard of qua
Pyrethrum Extract
and another subst


942, was alleged to
fessed standard of
?yrethrum Extract
lity of the product
20," whereas the
nce or substances


for "Pyrethrum Extract 20" since the product contained no


alleged to be m
'aph, borne on
d misleading a
) deceive and
plea of guilty


isbranded in that the
the labels affixed to
nd, by reason thereof,
mislead the purchase
was entered, and the


statement, as quoted in
the cans containing the
the product was labeled
r.
court imposed a fine of


1921. Misbranding of "Des-Tex Foam" and
Research Des-Tex, Inc., a Corporation.
'No.2333. I.D. Nos.7106, 7107, and 7269.)
Examination of "Des-Tex Foam" showed
percent water, fluorine equivalent to 0.1 perci
cent formaldehyde, and a wetting agent or c
bottles containing the product did not bear the
.: and the product would not protect against mc
tions on the label. *


Examination of samples of
consisted of .mineral oil, terpe
.of nitro-derivatives similar to
would not kill nor protect f
Vermin, nor would it destroy o
On December 15,-1943, the U


i.: Florida, acting upon a r
district. court an inform;
h alleging shipment in inter
and March 9, 1943, from
SFoam" and "Des-Tex Dry
, FIla., to Atlanta, Ga., of
F oAm" was a misbranded
.was a misbranded insecti
.:..* The "Des-Tex Foam"
..histed partially of inert
'odium silicofluoride), w


Sinsects or fungi
not stated plain
aud-percentage


(bact
ly and
amoun


epor


"Des-Tex Dry-Cleaner."
Plea of guilty. Fine $25.


that this product
ent sodium silicoflu
leaner. The labels
required statement
ths when used acco


VU. S. v.
(I. &F.


contained 91.2
ride, 0.23 per-
affixed to the
of ingredients,
rding to direc-


"Des-Tex Dry-Cleaner" showed that this product
nes (probably from pine oil), and a small amount
nitrobenzene. The product when used as directed
rom roaches and bugs, it would not exterminate
dors.
Jnited States attorney for the Southern District of
t from the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the


atjon again
state comm
Miami' Fla.
-Cleaner," a
a quantity
insecticide a
cide within
vas alleged
substances
whichh -would


st Research Des-Tex, Inc., a corporation,
erce, on or about January 16, February 10,
, to Chicago, Ill., of quantities of "Des-Tex
nd on or about March 4, 1943, from Miami,
of "Des-Tex Dry-Cleaner." The "Desr-Tes
nd fungicide and the "Des-Tex Dry-Cleaner"
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
to be misbranded in that the product con-
(substances other than formaldehyde and
Snot prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate


ria), and the names and percentage amoun
correctly on the label nor, in lieu thereof,
t of each and every substance or ingredient


ts thereof were
were the name
of the product


605





0.e. .INTIC

~~orh~oughljy brush 0r\.wacugp artic
S:: o~ a pan or pil containing one I
arts of water-$erub smsecl
disappear^, laying the nap lwit the
' entire article htias bee covered. Fi
Beside a Moth protecting Agentl *
Upholstery: Apply with brush and
parts water Bruh fabric before


ACt


the]
. of
wi
st st
ioff


[N. L.. L rt


2 dip a soft plain bristle
Des-Tex Foam diluted wit
th a circular motion until
troke of the brush. Repeat
with a dry cloth. *


brush
h ten
foam
until
I.-


cloth Dilute Des-Tex Foam to eight
Sand after application,"


8 ~~~e bote ot
borne on the labels atItB to the bottles containing
and misleading and tended to deceie and mislead the
whet used as directed would not protect nor proof
Sarid upholstery against moths i
The "Des-Tex Dry-Cleaner" was alleged to be mis
ments, "Des-Tex Dry-Oleaner ** It Protects
Bugs To Destroy Odors and Exterminate Ve
into crevices, floor baseboards, te. Use occasionally
Mattresses and pillows may be sprayed direct," borne
bottles containing the product, were false and mislead
ad mislead the purchaser, since the product when
kill nor protect from roaches and bigs and would
and it would not destroy odors.
On January 22, 1944, the defendant entered a ple
imposed a fine of $25.


ig the product, were false
purchaser since the product
f woolen articles, fabrics,
"branded in that the state-
* *. Kills Roaches
rmin. Spray Des-Tex well
in sinks and water closets.
onl the labels affixed to the
ding and tended to deceive
used as directed would not
I not exterminate vermin,


a


of guilty, and


the court


1922. Adulteration and misbranding of "K B Pine Oil Disinfectant." U. U
v. Joseph Katz, Trading as The K. B. Chemical Co. Plea of tfilty Pine
$50. (I. & F. 0. 2273. 3.os. 2668 and 4434.)
Examination of samples of "K B Pie Oil Disinfectant" showed that the
product contained 17.2 and 16.0 percent Water, and 70.0 and 71.0 percent pine
oil, respectively. The product was not disinfectant under all conditions,
nor was it an effective disinfectant for useJn hospitals.
On May 10, 1943, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode Island,
acting Upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
an information against Joseph Katg, trading as The K. B. Chemical Co., alleging
shipments in interstate commerce, on or about November 13, 1941, and January
9, 194S from Providence, R. I., to Boston, Mass., of quantities of "K B Pine Oil
Disinfectant" which was an adulterated $cd misbranded fungicide within the
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product in both shipments was alleged, in counts one and five in the
information, to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell below the
professed standard and quality under which it was sold, as shown by the state-
ment, "80% Pine Oil Inert IngredipntS (water) not over 10%," which
purported and represented that the produce consisted of not less than 80 percent
of pine oil and not more than 10 percent of water,.whereas the product contained
less than 80 percent of pine 011 and more than 10 percent of water.
The product in both sbhipments was alleged, in counts two and six in the
information, to be misbranded in that the statement, "Inert Ingredients (water)
not over 10%," borne on the labels sffised to the bottles containing the product,
was false and misleading and, by ixason thereof, the product was labeled and
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the product contained
more than 10 percent water.
The product in both shipments was alleged in counts three and seven in
the information, to be misbranded ftrther in that the statement, "80% Pine Oil,"
borne on the labels affixed to the otles containing the product, was false and


h


I
I


p




*1.
p.
p
I.
p....
U!:
*1
-
A.
I.-..


91.111925]


NOTICES


GMENT


607


jrqSdut wIS not an effective disinfectant under
an effective disinfectant for use in hospitals.
y ..February 28, 1944, the defendant entered a
^i ged a fine of $15 on count one and $S on each
. 'Ia8" Mitsbranding of "Frostee Paradleilorobenz
.. OCurran Chemical & Tar Products Company,
.. ...::.....Fine $1 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2331. I. D. N


kkxamination of samples o
if.t the bottles containing
listed of % pint as claim
product.
,On December 31, 1943, tl
of Illimois, acting upon a


aUll conditions, and it was not

plea of guilty, and the court
of the other seven counts.
:ene Liquid Spray." U. S. v.
Sa Corporation. Plea of guilty.
o. 5995.)


f "Frostee Pafadichlorobenzene Liquid Spray" showed
the product had an average net content of 0.35 pint
ed on the labels affixed to the bottles containing the


ie United States attorney for the Northern
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed


District
in the


district court an information against Curran Chemical &
a corporation, alleging shipment in interstate commerce,


.9,1942, from Chicago, Ill.,
dichlorobenaene Liquid Sp
meaning of the Insecticide
- The product was alleged
borne on the labels affixed
misleading, and by reason
to deceive and mislead the
seuted that the bottles coni
content of the bottles was h


Tar Products Company,
on or about November


to Nashville, Tenn., of a quantity of "Frostee Para-
ray" which was a misbranded insecticide within the
Act of 1910.
I to be misbranded in that the statement, "% pint,"
to the bottles containing the product, was false and
thereof, the product was labeled and branded so as
purchaser, since the statement purported and repre-
taining the product contained ., pint, whereas the net
ess than 14 pint.


On February 24, 1944, a plea of guilty was entered, and the court imposed a
fine of $1, rnd costs amounting to $19.96.
1924. Adulteration and misbranding of "Twin Light Redox." U. S. v. Seacoast
Laboratories, Inc., a Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine $200. (I. & F.
No. 2223. I. D. No. 1355.)


- Examination of sar
trained an average of
dients. The cans co
of the product instead
On February 24, 1
of New York, acting
district court an info
alleging shipment in
New York, N. Y., to I
was an adulterated
Insecticide Act, of 191
The product was al
. below the professed
the following stateme


mples
15.63
itainin
lof qic
944, tU
upon


* "Twin Light Redox" show
percent cuprous oxide and 8
the product had a net cont
art as claimed on the label.
United States attorney fo
report by the Secretary of


hat the product con-
percent inert ingre-
of less than 1 quart


r the Southern District
Agriculture, filed in the


rmation against Seacoast Laboratories, Inc., a corporation,
interstate commerce, on or about March 25, 1941, from
Baltimore, Md., of a quantity of "Twin Light Redox" which
and misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the
0.
alleged to be adnulterated in that its strength and purity fell
standard and quality under which it was sold, as shown by
int: ,


"Active Ingredient-Cuprous
Inert IngrediAets


oxide, not less than
not less than


25%
75%,


. which purported and represented that the standard and quality of the product
were such that it contained an active ingredient, cuprous oxide, in the proportion
' of not.less than 25 percent and that it contained inert ingredients in the proportion
of not less than 75 percent, whereas the product contained cuprous oxide in a
proportion much less than 25 percent, and it contained inert ingredients in a
proportion much greater than 75 percent.
..The product was alleged to be misbrande4l in that the statement, as quoted in


. 4-kn- wrnnAirnd n norwan.on hnvmna nrf +1, loahoic nIrwn i-nt-h +fnhD nn inn r





jpQ~ flQE(


AOl?


Chloro-San:: Mt
C. G. Whitlock Company_. ...
Del-Tox:
Del-Tox Chemical Company-- .
Des-Tex Dry-Cleaner .
Research Des-Tex, Ine ....
Des-Tex Boam
Research Des-Tex, Inc....--
Formozone:
W. V. Smith & Company-..--
Frostee Paradichlorobenzene Liquid
Spray: .
Cunran Chemial & Tar Products
Company
Granger '77' Chloro-D Powder:
ranger '77' Products Company.
Hi-Tox 20:
Associated Chemists, Inc- .e --


* S. No.
1915
1912

1921
1921

1917


1923
1911
1920


KB Pine Oil Disinfectant: N. J. No.
Joseph Katz ....- 1922
The K. B. Chemical Co _----- 1922
SKl: ens, Inc .-- -------- 1919
Oil Emulsion :
Sehaeffer Bros. & Powell Manu-
Sfacturing Company --...-- 1918
Ferfumo:
Acme Chemical Company....---- 1916
Pine Oil Disinfectant:
o]e Laboratories, Inc- ....-.. _-- 1914
X4rt Cleaning Compound:
Iroxite Products. Inc -......--- 1913
Pyrethrumru Extract 20:
Associated Chemists, IncT---- 1920
Tat int Bait:
Soilicide Laboratories ...--..--- 1925
'Iin Light Redox :
i Seacoast Laboratories, Inc..... 1924


ICIDE


1925. Adulteration and misbranding of "Tat Ant Bait." U. S. v. Sollicide Labya-
Setoriee, a CrpWio. lea of guilty. Fine $600. (I. & F. No. 2343. L D
-* "Nos. 663 6'nd 6916.)
imami es of T At Bait" showed that the product contained
1.22 and .02 percent of thallium sulphate, and more than 98.70 percent inert
ingredients, respectively; the label claimed 1.30% of thallium sulphate, and
98.70% inert ingredients The tubes contained an average of 0.91 ounce and
0.86 ounce of the product, respectively; the label claimed net weight 1 ounce.
On'March 13,41944, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,
acting upon a report bythe Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
an information against oilicid La boratories, a corporation, alleging shipment
in Interstate commerce, on or about January 6 and June 22, 1943, from Mont-
clair, N. J., to New York, N. ,I and from Montclair, N. J., to Denver, Colo.,
respectively, of quantities of "Tat Apt Bait" which was an adulterated and mis-
branded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product> was alleged, i. counts ine and four in the itdraon o
adulterated in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or
quality under which it was sold, since t1e statement borne on the labels, affixed
to the tubes containing the product, purported and represented that its standard
or quality was such that the product contained not less than 1.30 percent of thal-
lium sulphate and inert ingredients no in excess of 98.70 percent, whereas the
product contained less than 1.30 percent of thallium sulphate and more than 98.70
percent inert ingredients,.
The product was alleged, in counts two and five in the information, to be mis-
branded in that the statement of ingredients, borne on the labels affixed to the
tubes containing the product, was false and misleading and, by reason thereof,
the pi-oduct was labeled and branded so a to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
The product was alleged, in counts three and six in the information, to be
misbranded further in that the statement, "Net Wt. 1 Oz.," borne on the labels
affixed to the tubes containing the pradluct, and the statement, "Net Weight
1 Ounce borne on the labels affixed to the small cartons in which the individual
tubes of the product were packed, were false and misleading and, by reason thereof
the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
since the statement purported and represented that the tubes contained 1 ounce
of the product, whereas the tubes contained less than 1 ounce of the product.
On March 21, 1944, a plea of guilty was entered, and on March 31, 1944, the
court imposed a Ine of $100 on each of the six counts.

INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 1911-1925














:1'


-itt
*
I
I.' *.
c .r
.
**J9 *:~, ~ H -
* ** .1~ *.. ... I


*. *4* *


AI"
1~1 -.
4 ~' *'~~ .9


1~~ gi

A~ ~ ..~ '
:11*.
fl~

..I ,. Jd*
3 -r
*.


r ~
P *tS~ ~~j% ~ ',. .
*1. ~ -
*
1~..-~
.1---~-'~
..4I ;;-r. S
4.
1*



'2 ~ U
.1
cc. .1
-. *
.AJ.~~iI
I
4..,
Id&. .. .
r.
.~ .7f.

*~;.' *.t
t .:'



I :~. .


P.



** .':;4ZS
ir~' -.
S
I.. ~4~
i5~ ~



I I

..I~: *
I....
1%
I -
I .. *.j.
I.. .. I~


I *

~ .6
t. *1~

.$rj *:::


I
I.

I *~** ~




* *

*14
I
II


:- !~. ~
.~*. ,

* *. --
I.

~


* "J


I
V.s


I,



I. -

lilA:.




I.
- A
r~..





: V.' 4.*


I.








H
*1~




* cdt
S
J.

ii.


f





4* / : ; /


Seaji*-





xxx .0
x= i
xx' x.






xn' .x


Er


*** :


4
4


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA






3 1262 08582 5114

" ~ m i" ,':i.
I \

*i *


* '