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:
AA00008549:00046

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text
*... .L. : -. .

,..,= .- ] 1 9
. .* .... I : .
.. .i.. .. .. """ .
--,,....... '... .




4...:!.


H*
j I
V.A ,1
;r..
I
t.



irr

~



H.1
I
.1



H.....
H..
A
t.b
.
-i.~I:~ *r
c.:! .~
"p.

H....
rIH~
.1 I..~ H
Ir.. .. -
V.....
'Er..:
.ii.



















V

H


r ~
.4

icr
*'*,i~ .
...~. *


I.-. 4.,


* 1


. -__----- -__-


16-1949


STATES DEPARTMENT OF
| r ,*. ^ .


U
I
V


Issued December 1946


AGRICULTURE


PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


1926-1949


3 1~


K.


of Jqd m.ent herewith relate to cases instituted in the United States
sfa~nd are .approved for publication, as provided in section 4 of the
ft of 191lf (36 Stat. 3311.C -


.. : :- .7
r.
.. ..., r. .
"Vw' **: "" shf *" ".*';
y" .Q::*j4. .. Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
.:,'f : s' .* '
.* Q., Aug st 294. .. 946.



eratisn and, misbranding* of Laymonm Roach & Ant Food." U. S. v.
1.. Laymon, trading as World's Products Co. Demurrer to
,, u. dat ptea In abatement, sustained. Plea of guilty. fine $50.
AtE"!.. o. 5. I..D. Na. 7660.)
f-,-ti on of samples of "Laymon's Roach & Ant Food" showed that the
S ji** an. average of 55.1 percent sodium fluoride and 44.9 percent
8 nts, instead of 72 percent sodium fluoride and 28 percent inert
:I.statd 'on thlie label.
.2 :1 4, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
pzion a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed an informa-
t't.court against Herman B. Laymon, trading as World's Products
I shipment in interstate commerce, on or about August 13, 1943, from
i4. Shrevep0rt, La., of a quantity of "Laymon's Roach &Ant Food,"
e d.Pd to. have been an adulterated and misbranded insecticide
u.i.ng of the Insecticide, Act of 1910.
t. Mwas alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Laymon's
pFood Active.Ingredient: Sodium Fluoride 72%, Inert
,. .* *," borne on the labels affixed to the cartons containing
P ipbrted and presented that its standard or quality was such that
.iit oi.es than 72 percent of sodium fluoride and inert ingredients not
Z.'. Itent, whereas.the strength or purity of the product fell below
', t adhrd.o. quality under.which it was sold, in that the product
iJ.*"^ r CssiiT*t: ^ p .^. r
"bS-o. d 72 perent oZ :sodium. fluoride and more than 28 percent ,
.j.. ., ,' '
|" | "s alleged to be misbranded m that the foregoing label statement
i .W ,, .' ASd' misleagdng and the product was labeled so as to
:':" ipuatchaser..

iWe ndant filed a p In, b tent and brief min support
Stht t.,e ,had .no.t been opunity for a. hearing
BYSA^.l^ tiidTO*t..tte^ jhdntbenfn^nv4r I.. *Iii/^At at. 4-ha Tn^anntinli~a Ant-


t





610


INSECTICIDE ACT [N. 3., I. F.


' *** / n
1927. Misbranding of tLime Sulfur Solution" and "Oil Emulsion." U. S. v. H. A.
DBoi & Sons, Inc., a corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine $100 and costs.
.,: (I &F. No. 257.' I. D, Nos. 8638, 8647, 8648.)


An examination of samples
product contained 67.57 percent
was an inert ingredient. The
a label showing the required in
of "Oil Emulsion" showed that
inert ingredient. The product
show jipe required ingredient
On July 6, 1944, the United S
acting upon report from the
the district court against H. A.
meant in interstate commerce f
bout March 14 1944, of aj
Welary ;xkV h, of a quanft
Th~se prg6ucds were contained
labels* The "Limite Sulfuir So]
inseti"eide agd fungi ed withi
the "Oil Eulsion," a mishrai
It was faiged hi the infqr
branied in that the product ci


"Lime


Sulfur


Solution"


t and 67.26 percent, respectively,
product was misbranded, since i
gredient statement. An examine
it contained 36.6 percent of wate
was misbranded since it failed
t statement.
states attorney for the Eastern DiJ


showed


of water
t failed
tion of a
r, which
to bear


that


, which
to bear
sample
was an
a label


strict of Illinois,


Secretary of Agriculture, filed an information in
DuBois &Sons, Inc., a corporation, alleging ship-
rom Cobden, Ill., to Cape Girardeau, Mo., on or
entity of "'Lime Sulfur Solution," and, on or about


"Oil Emulsion" and
a number of drums
i" was deemed to 1
meaning of the Ins
insecticide within t
n that the "Lime S
ted partially of an


which tid not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insect
bear a label st tig the name and percentage amount o
nor didit bear abel stating the names qpd percentage am
having insectic tal or fungicidal properties and the total
ingredients.
Ftwas aged im the information that the "Oil Emulsi
that hpro&uteos d rtially of an inert substance
pravnt, destroy, repe[ or mitigate insets, and did not 1
name and percentgatmount of such inert ingredient,
stating the 3ne aanid .irentage amounts of the ingredi
proprties and the.total apecntageof the inert ingredient
On July 21, 1944, the defendant corporation entered a
of $100 and costs were imposed. .


"Lia
which
have
ectici
he m
ulfur
inert


s or


te Sulfur Solution."
h did not bear any
been a misbranded
de Act of 1910, and
meaning of said act.
Solution" was mis-


substan
fungi,


f such inert
Counts of the
percentage


ton" i
(wat
bear
nor
ents
ts.
plea


ce (water),
and did hot
ingredient,
ingredients
of the inert


s misbranded in
), which did not
label stating the
Sit bear a label
ving insecticidal


of~ a
giH


1928. Adulteration and misbranding of "Newco StabiHlized Formaldehyde Dusta"
U. S. v. Neweo Manufacturing Corporation, a corporation. Plea of guilty,
Fine $200. (I. & F. No. 2281. I. D. No. 4902.)
Seanzlfati of o tabilied Formaldehyde Dust" showed that the
jeobiet gonsi tt of ()48percendi forYtnyde and 99.52 percent inert ingredients
in tad of 6 percent paraformaldehyde 94 percent inert inigrdIfhnisas c im
ti label. The name was misl since ..the product consisted chiefly of
sfltSurs mateftial and a very small amount of formaldehyde. Because of the
aotage in formaldehyde content the product was worthless and failed to control
tk8 dbaseS spcifie and implied by thelabeL directions.
OnAugust 9, 1944, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
New York, acting upon a report from the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
jipt equrt an information against Newco Manufacturing Corporation, a cor-
nD~t A, a!l1ging shipment in interstate comma r a, a
from Mount Vernon, N. Y., to Greenwich, Con., of a quantty ofewo a ize
Formaldehyde Dust," which was deemed to have been an adulterated and. mis-
branded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910,
Tghe 'ifrt was alleeadia te 'informationt Bo e Ifduera n na e ta


meats,


"Newco Stabilized


nnn jlmjrn ^ ^.~ nor nnt4'n^ nw l


Formaldehyde Dust Analysis (at the time
Iiif nA fl Ct.* Tnn 4--t- T tn j~A ; nn 4-cc flh.I u7t Y9 n- ..nnnnhn -wfjt 44.* aT





'' 1~
*26-1949]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


611


--. 9Tbe product was alleged in the information t
:. hae statements,
,. :* .. ewco Stabilized Formaldehyde Dust Seed
::. j etions: To treat soil, as a ma ns of control
.: .... ". dsmping-off of seedlings, use 1% oz. of Newc
.ty -tuare foot of soil in beds, benches or fiats 3
.' : sqm foot if 4 inches deep. For tre:
ai:ts, :mix 8 ounces/of Newco Stabilized Formal
il on. a tight floor or bench, by shoveling over m
,i ..poltg, flats or benches and plant the seed.
.. an"plantings or cuttings three days (72 hours)
S altnts .:.Apply Newco Stabilized Formaldehyde D
S.e ..vand water the soil thoroughly, and.keep
c: g txol for Oat Smut and Covered Smut of
b.tized Formaldehyde Dust very thoroughly w
:: lyfield treatment of such crops as beans, peas
.:.. veo .Stabilized Formaldehyde Dust with the
: ^ ..feot row. Use one pound to 4-150 foot row,"
'. .:..outaining the product, were false and misled
::.. putkurchasers in that the product, when used as
A"et:,. trol.the diseases specified and implied by the
.:...:..t..was.alleged in the information that the pro
...:; $.t the statement of ingredients, borne.on the
'" .ighi-:.the. product, was false and misleading s
.w.. hagers since the product contained less thai
.. :.. ,#i.)re -j ru :ugust 21, 1944, a plea of guilty was enter


-. H
* *.. ...*
* *A ,tr-.~-
*14.
4I~'..


edla fine of $100 on each of the two counts.
Xisbranding of "Go-West Improved Insect
p =pekages, more or less, of "Go-West Impro
. oree of condemnation and forfeiture. (I.
- ,8934.)
examination of samples of "Go-West Improv
re.ge net weight was 12.42 ounces ipstead
*,taS the weight declared on the package labe


& qa Jf ,e 1944, the U'
A=.n..1pon a report by th
m.paifng seizure and
*-:T.. r ...


ited States at
e Secretary of
condemnation
- _"T


torney
Agricu
of 700


fori
ltu
16-<


:o be further misbranded in that

i And Soil Treating Compound
of' certain fupgus diseases known
o Stabilized Formaldehyde Dust


inches deep. Use 2 to
eating soil to be used in
lehyde Dust with each
iany times. Place the r
* Treat soil f(


to seven days
ust at the same
it wet. *
Barley mix 3
'ith each bushel
, onions, beets


seed at
borne oi
fading so
directed
label cla


3 oz. per
pots and
bushel of
nixed soil
r use in


before setting the
rate as previously
* For use as a
ounces of Newco
of grain. *
and spinach drill


the rate of one ounce to
i the labels affixed to the
as to deceive and mislead
d on the label, would not


duct was further misbranded in
k labels affixed to the cans con-
o as to deceive and mislead the
i 6 percent of paraformaldehyde

ed on both counts, and the court


Bait." U. S. v. 70T 16-ounce
ved Insect Bait." Default de-
& F. No. 2358. I. D. Nos. 8885,
red Insect Bait" showed that
of 16 ounces, when packed,
ls.
Sthe District of New Jersey,
re, filed in the district court a
ounce packages, more or less,
V a t* A. t


So..tu-:v .-u-west Improved Insect naiiz an jersey uity, N. J., alleging tnat tne proauci
;' had I..beei- shipped in interstate commerce on or about December 16, 1943, by the
Agdc...;..g0ital Laboratories, Inc., from Columbus, Ohio, and charging that the
.".. ... ... misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
.. *
:".,.:: *'he product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "Net Weight
..... : .When Packed," borne on the labels affixed to the packages containing the
.. =. ,-.was false and misleading so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in
. tL..... the statement purported and represented that the packages contained 16
I ::,I=.net weight of the product when packed, whereas the packages had not and
4=bo.t.. .. conta.n 16 ounces net weight of the product.
...="'-" August 14, 1944, no claimant having appeared, decree of condemnation and
1,=. t* itz tre was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
.. *:':,.. *.. :. "* ", -"
.. .... ftera unrana. misbranding of "Meehlng's Arsenate of Callunm." U. S.
: :. v :. General Chemical Company, a corporation. Plea of not guilty. Tried
S*..:-.;,,14 to the court. Judgment of guilty on count one and not guilty on count
,,.,*:'. *. .two. Fine 25. (I. & I'.. Nn. 2335 T_ T. Nn RnAn.2


t





INSECTICIDE ACT


[N.J., t P.


edm Ie been an adulterated and misbranded insecticide within the
meaning ef the secticide Act of 1910.
In count oneihe product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength or
purity fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold. The
Whel attached to the bags containing the product stated in part,
IVGMDIENT, Dry Arsenate of Calcium------ not less than71.00%

'OAL ARESENICt
EIxpressed as tetallih Arsenic (As). ---------- not less than 26.74%
SBqutivalent to Arenic Pentoxide (AsO)------------ --- 41.00%
E 'quaent to Arse Trioxide (AsOs)----------- -------- --35.-
ASNIO IN WAThLR SOLUBLE FORM:
Expressed as Metallic Arsenic (As) not more than 0.49%
Equivalent to ArsehiePentoxide (As2Oa)----------0.75%,"
.. .j" ^ .... th an*
wJhereas he prQouct contained les than 71.00 percent calcium arsenate, more than
290 percent finert ingredients, less -than 26.74 percent total arsenic expressed as
metallic arseic, less than 41.00 percent arsenic pentoxide, and more than 0.49
perqet a soluble arsenic expressed as metallic arsenic, equivalent to 0.75
percent arsenic pentoside.e
4 In count one the product was alleged to be further adulterated in that it con-
tined a substance or substances ijurriods to vegetation when applied as directed.
In count two the product was allege to be misbranded in that the contents
dierd from the statement of composition on the label. The product was
aleged to be hurtheer misbranded in tha the labels were false and misleading so
g to misled And Ieceive the purcder in that the labels stated in part,
"Mec'iigs Aradnate of 'OalCliuA For Dust Application: On truck
crops, mix 1 part Mechling's Arsfiate of Calcium with 4 parts of Hydrated Lime
anapply mixture at the rate of 102(2 pounds per acre For Small
UsUe 101 level teuspoonfuls of MECHLING'S Arsenate of Calcium to
1 gallon of water with the addition of equal parts of Hydrated Lime," whereas
th duct whn used as directed was tot safe on truck crops and would injure
tedetoliage snch as beans.
n0 aOctober 1I 1944 the defendant having entered a plea of not guilty, the
case came on for trial before the court, jury having been waived. The court found
tgt.tti water splible arsenic content exceeded that stated on the label and
4 p e p was injurious to bea pianfts; wheraxpn, the
al ge&dgidiuty bn count one and not guilty on count two. The court imposed

981. Adultration and miasbranding of "Harris' Original 'Ant Buttnoma."' .U S.
? v, Har Dnducts Co., Inc. Plea of nolo contender on count one.
Count two nol-prossed in consideration of defendant's stpulatiOln to
rchang- composition and labeling. Fine $50. (I. & F. No. 2292. I. D. No.
i2172.) 4
_k exaxmination of samples of this product showed that it consisted of sodium
ad and sugars packed in small metal caps that were enclosed in cellogalne
lkvr op. The analysis showed the product contained 3.22 percent and 8.29
percent of bodiuma arsenate, equivalent to 1.30 percent and 1.33 percent.arsenic,
ad 96.78 percent and 96.71 percent inert ingredients, respectively, while the label
#iiaStd 1441 percent sodium arsenate, 3.46 percent total arsenic in all8 water
oluble tdtm, and 85.59 percent inert ingredients. Tests show the u
in tg amist seven age fat n a fetv gis~n pce
of ants and it was not reliable against roaches, sivernsh, water bugs, crickes, all
flies, and wasps when used as directed.




me.. -H-
I! .
a
*.* *
Hi~* H ~.*
PS. I.
k.rj d&nA4j
*
r
*1.. .
*W.~ ~
t.4'4H

V.

A!


949]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


a611~


as the product contained less than 14.41 percent of sodium arsei
3 59 percent of inert ingredients, and less than 3.46 percent
ersenic expressed as metallic arsenic.
hint two the product was alleged to be misbranded in that the ab
1 Ingredients was false and misleading so as to deceive and m
ier. The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that
spearing on the metal caps, on the cellophane envelopes, and on
U, as quoted in part:


tt Buttons' Kill Ants-Roaches
Dissolved Kills .
S K. Waterbugs, Wasps, Flies,
fi-btitt of raw potato, cheese or
*ttons' constantly to destroy p


e


moisten daily with few drops
Flies, Many Insects *
Many Insects, -Add
other bait to moistened 'Ant Bi
sts as they hatch or appear fro


late, more
of water


iove state-
islead the
the state-
the small


water-stir
* -For
a pinch of
buttons Use
m neighbor-


. pnt Buttons' kill most prevalent
tr -purrow in Wood. To destroy
loar bacon.
it e ,, Agricultural Ants-Moisten
i. ,Buttons' prevent breeding-
iH .... *
i ;:,. .-


Sweet-Eating Ants that invade Homes, Gar-
y the rare Grease-Eating Ant, add a scrap


and place near ant nests.


of


ants


development


Effective to the


of their


eggs.


.- A C _


rse and misleading so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the
would not kill ants or prevent the breeding of ants and the development
peggs, and would not killroaches, flies, water bugs, wasps, crickets, silver-
Iother insects indicated by the term "Many Insects."
iober 24, 1944, in consideration of dismissal of the count of misbranding,
'xdant corporation and Sara Harris, individually, stipulated that the
i.f the product would be changed according to certain specifications and
" product might be offered for use as a control against sweet-eating ants,
lilies, and under certain conditions by continued use would reduce the
rf roaches, water bugs, silverfish, and crickets. The defendant
td then entered a plea of nolo contender to count one, and count two
Sba.sed. The court imposed a fine of $50.


H. Hdig of "Mirra Moth Immunizer." U. S. v. 1,003 quart bottles, more
..'. .. e u,.199 one-half gallon bottles, more or less, and 81 gallon bottles,
..:*|i..are or less, each containing and labeled "Mirra Moth Immunizer."
.K:, :.. mn admission of the allegations in the libel the court issued ah order
..: jenmitting relabeling of the goods and their return after relabeling to
..... t Ue:. hiper. (I. & F. No. 2363. I. D. No. 9076, 9082.)
.I"u. tibn of samples of "Mira Moth Immunizer" showed that the product
lu 0099.7 percent water with a small amount of sodium arsenate, pine
ring matter. The only active ingredient was sodium arsenate and the
e lAS did not bear the required ingredient statement.
Op'%a&4t 18, 1944, the United States attorney for the Western District of
eating upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
Sueort a'libel, praying seizure and condemnation of 1,003 quart bottles,
#ialf gallon bottles, and 81 gallon bottles, more or less, of "Mirra Moth
a zefar" at Louisville, Ky., alleging that the product had been shipped in
.tkte Eommerce, on or about May 17,.1944, by Mirra Chemical Laboratories,
~.~lfmnbus, Ohio,- and charging that the product was a misbranded insecticide
4IltM meaning of the Insecticidb Act of 1910.
!Xroduct was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of
Ibstances (substances other than sodium arsenate) which would not pre-




A


614


1N~S~CTIC1DE
4


ACT


[N.J., I. F.


16 "hiM5 dirS. v. Bynum Bycolife Company, a corpora-
"n *ibt fi o" "Bycelynum
; in .. PIca S"nof gii ly.tvJ Trial by jury. A juror withdrawn by the court.
SPlea of guilty to count two. Order that defendant make no further insee-
tiidal claims on labelpor in advertising. Count one held on doqket.
: Judgment suspended until next term of court. Final judgment: Fine of
$i $2009 wh-e a |agpen|n condition that ordered not ole
.fther. (I. .io, 2243. J 109.)
An examination of *yceplie soed- that it consisted of potassium chloride,
calcium, phosphate, calcium sulphate, iron compounds, water soluble nitrogen
compound, organic material of the nature of dried sewage, and siliceous mate-
rial. Tests showed the rducttas ineffective in preventing insect dawgae t
toses, potatoes, beans, prietecabbake and several greenhouse plants.
'he United states attorney fr th Western District of North Qa.rolina, act-
ig upon a report by the Seoretat of Agliculture, filed in the district court an
information against the Bytim Byyeoife Company, a corporation, alleging ship-
mept in interstate commerce, on or about May 21. 1941, from Charlotte, N. C.,
tb Pocomdke City, Md. of a quantity of "Bycolife" which was deemed to have
betn a mishranded itrnticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
In count one, the product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,
"Bycolife
'The indecticided plant rood .
A Complete High Analysis Plant Foo with Non-Poisonous Insecticide for the
Prevention and Control of Leaf-Eating and Sap-Sucking Insects *
Bycolife
A Completely Insecticided Plant Food
Follow these directions:
Roses-Pull the dirt away from the stalk for two or three inches deep enough
to see the r0ots, apply a tdblespqonful all around the plant, cover with dirt and
waterr welt
Pot Plht-itun ayrng with your finger around near the pot, dust Bycolife
spartingly, qder with tirt and water.
Shbrut- ? ,ifWt nawy from plaut six to twelve inches down to the fed.roots,
appy BycIifoe according t the siie of the Shrub. Replace dirt and water
thcrouighly.
Tirees-Pull dirt away from the body from 12 to 18 inches. Apply from 3 to 5
bs. equally all, aroux4, cover and water
UT atlon-Alwasapply enough Bycolif to fertilize the pln!t and the Insect-
A. **. x' ^w ** ^ xx* x' x 7 jr. r^ xx x. x x x-^ 4 &x
ct wIdo the rist i l1ow with another application as often as necessary.

A Complete- Non-Burning Pertilizer
Tested for ~bhr4e years under all kinds of Flowers, Trees and Shrubs.
A HEW IEAi in preventing ITsets.
The plat tae~ fl.sthe fertiZ ier through the Feed Roots and in so doing in-
secticides each leaf and limb ?"
b6trne n the lablts axed to the bags containing the product, were false and
mttsleaing so aM to deivee and misled the purchaser, since the product, when
u8e6 as dfrted, would not prevent or control leaf-eating and sap-sucking in-
Its6,*ouId not prevent insects, and would not render each leaf and each limb
in8 &tiIal
n couhij two;, th" produt was alleged to be further misbranded in that the
tex cobsisted completely of >inert substances, and the name and percentage
amountof each and every inert substance were not stated plainly and correctly,
or at. alt, on the bag aInbels.
tApflN1942, the eanse came on for trial before a jury. the defendant having
.M STa nfnnt nivi. Atf thep cnne-luion nf nrpsentantion of the Government




S.. h ..

i2.;i..-,-9491 NOTICE'S 'OF JUTDGMEKI' 615

:.*...* |ji,j.. Adulteration and misbranding of "HI-Tox-20." U. S. v. 9 fifty-five-gallon
a.. Arums and 25 five-gallon cans, more or less, of "Hi-Tox-20." U. S. v. 1
Hi:: 4 i*tH: [, flfty-five-gaUllon drum of "Hi-Tox-20." Default decrees of condemnation
H.L.H41. ,:and forfeiture and product ordered destroyed. (I. & F. Nos. 2368 and 2367.
.... I. D. Nos. 10324 and 10325.)
**M 3***examination of samples of "Hi-Tox-20" showed that the product consisted
.'.: of mineral oil containing a small amount of a chlorinated compound,
lI. to orthodichlorobenzene, a trace of an organic thiocyanate, and green
ng matter. The product was represented by implication as possessing a
Sgth comparable to a 20-1 concentrated fly spray, whereas tests with the
i fjiited samples against bred flies in the Peet-Grady chamber gave average
fi" b.kdowns of 44 percent and 47 percent, and kills of 17 percent and 22 percent,
S.i.S. etively. Comparative tests with the Official Test Insecticide gave an average
* *. :*fl '.. .
,:.:'down of 99 percent and a kill of 48 percent. Similar tests with a sample of
H:., pdct at a dilution of 1 part to 19 parts of deodorized kerosene gave an
knockdown of 23 percent and 20 percent and a kill of 3 percent and 4
4!-.. h'.t' .Comparative tests with the Official Test Insecticide gave an average
d''c owng of 96 percent and a kill of 53 percent.
i... ".. eptember 21, 1944, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
i. "' ""ni, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
-. t.court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 9 fifty-five gallon drums
H.,.-. 25afve"gallon cans, more or less, of "Hi-Tox-20" at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging
.i.-:ttbe -product had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about March
|.March 27, and April 11, 1944, by the Associated Chemists, Inc., from Chicago,
.~ Wd charging that the product was an adulterated and misbranded insecti-
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
mt eber 13, 1944, the United States attorney for the Northern District
Siornia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
..I..!:! -i 'court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of one fifty-five-gallon
.. HTx-20" at San Francisco, Calif., alleging that the product had been
... ":'* a b utEo
'.i .i interstate commerce, on or about March 24, 1944, or March 27, 1944,
E...;. ,Associated Chemists, Inc., from Chicago, Ill., to Los Angeles, Calif., and
S, le!Ut .reshipped to San Francisco, Calif., where the product remained un-
l.:1 .andit the original drum, and charging that the product was an adulterated
l".. :;:itranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
i ..r ~ t.libels the product was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement,
i!i;:.rw f-X20 L-fin odorless base," borne on the containers of the product, purported
S4i;"."isented that the product's standard or quality was such that it had a
re!. u comparable to a 20-1 concentrated fly spray, whereas the strength
y:.: ':p*rity of the product fell below such standard or quality in that the product
.i. 4.- .ilQ;.',possess a strength comparable to a 20-1 concentrated fly spray.
i:,:.h:,libels the product was alleged to be misbranded in that the label
IPV -%tatemienit, "IHII-TOX-20 in odorless base," was false and misleading so as to
j..:4 itj 1 aind mislead the purchaser. The statement purported and represented
.:... liation.. that the product possessed a strength comparable to a 20-1 con-
01k.?).r Aufuttedi fly spray, whereas the product did not possess such a strength.
':.. .ober2' 1944, and March 31, 1945, no claimants having appeared, decrees
..emn.ation and forfeiture were entered and the United States marshals
L.tH W,*,ordered to destroy the product.
.M*. .* **i" *: K: I*.**:* "*.M~i r
r :.HISB,. Adulteration and misbranding of "Hi-Tox-20." U. S. v. 5 fifty-five-gallon
:., .^..:'j..-. .drums and 51 five-gallon cans, more or less, of "HI-Tox-20." Default
:... -::.-.... decree of condemnation and forfeiture and product ordered destroyed.
..... (I. & F. No. 2365. I. D. No. 10312.)
(,HHHHto of samples of "Hi-Tos-20" showed that the product consisted
-i""of mineral oil, a chlorinated compound, similar and equivalent to 5.04
iofi:,nt, 5.06 percent, and 5.93 percent orthodichlorobenzene, respectively, and
iii. 593
H. ***~ 5.06 pcrcenL, and percent and
orthodichlorobenzene,
b~q--~$ respectively.





616 TINSE$RLICIDE Ate [N. 3., LWP.

district court a libel praying seizu and condemnation of 5 fifty-five-gallon drums
and51 fivegallon cans, more or e, of "Hi-Tox-20," at San Francisco, Calif.,
alegng tt th~ odu had be ipped in interstate commerce, on or about
February 23, 1944, by the Associated hemists, Inc., from Chicago, Ill., and
cha rging that the product was an aulfterated and misbranded insecticide within
the meaning of the Insecticide Act o: 1910.
fThe product was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement "HI-TOX-20
in odorless base," borne on the drums, and the statement "Hi-Tox-20," stenciled
on the fiber cases containing te pans, purported and represented that the prod-
net's standard or quality was such that it had a strength comparable to a 20-1
concentrated fly spray, whereas the strength or purity of the product fell below
such standard or quality in that the product did not possess a strength cornm-
parable to a 20-1 concentartpd fly spray. ..
The product was alleged to be mnisbranded 1 that the above sratemena e
false and misleading so as to decewive and mislead the purchaser by purporting
and implying that the product possesses a strength comparable to a 20-1 con-
centrated fly spray, whereas the prTduct tid not possess such a strength.
On March 3, 1945, no claimant hlvig" tpeared, decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United St1es marshal was ordered to destroy the
prpluct.
1936. Misbranding of "Jaygol Roach A lishcr." IT. S. v. 181 dozen 14-ounce
bags of "Jaygol Roach Abolisher." Decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2379 I. D. No. 10050.)
Examination of a sample of "Jaygol RIo ch Abolisher" showed that the product
consisted of 99.44 percent borice acid and 56 percent inert ingredients.
On ebruaty 28, 1945, the United Stat4 attorney for the Northern District of
Georgia, acting upon a report by the Seertary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court a libel praying seizure for condemn ion and confiscation of 181 dozen bags
of "Jaygol2EWach Abolisher," at Atlanta, va., alleging that the product had been
shipped in interstate commerce, on or iout December 6, 1944, by the Jaygol
Products Corporation, from Brooklyn, N. Y., and charging that the product was
a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
Tile "Jaygol Roach Abolisher" wastmisbranded in that the label stated,


(1) "Jaygol Roaeh Abolisher. This product when used acco
dimetions is guaranteed to absolutely abolish forever infestations
water bugs,"
(2) "Harmless to humans and pets--K non-poisonous to hu
pets, could be used safely everywhere,"
whereas the product when used as diet4, would not absolutely
infestations of roaches and Water bugs, nd the product was
humans and household pets and could nt be used safely every
On March 30, 1945, no elaimant having appeared, judgment o
and forfeiture was entered, and it was oered that the product
the United States marshal.


rding to simple
of roacheseand
nans and house

abolish forever
not harmless to
here.
f condemnation
be destroyed by


1937. Adulteration tad mwisbranding of1D & P Liquid Insecticlde Soap" and
adulteration of "3) & P4 i 1 Z aY." U. S. v. Doggett-Pfell Company.
Plea of guilty. flne $50 on ea of five counts, total $250. Fnlue asus-
pended and company placed on probation for a period of 2 years. (I. & F.
No. 2371. L D. Nos. b18$ A, 896, 940.)
Two samples of "D & P Liquid InSecticide Soap" were examined and found to
contain 20.4 percent soap and 18.i percent soap, respectively.
Rxamination of a sample of "D & P 4 1 Spray" showed it to consist of lime
and other calciuim compouias, together with 49.80 percent lead arsenate, nicotine-
bnn~llrin# nnai~orinI nnAir entrnian pnmnninvial




nnnxn;* S 6
yi926-1949] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 617

product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement of ingre-
k ignborne on the labels as quoted in the preceding paragraph, was false and
i ,tsiBding and, by reason thereof, the product was labeled and branded so as
S..t .deceive and mislead the purchaser.
..:'B-SD & P 4 in 1 Spray" was adulterated within the meaning of the Insecti-
S.- ctof 1910 in that the product contained a substance or substances injurious
i..tO *tetation on which it was intended to be used.
...o.:.:pril 4, 1945, a plea of guilty was entered and on May 4, 1945, the court
gj aeql.ea.ed the defendant to pay a fine of $50 on each of five counts, but sus-
i. the operation of said sentence and put the defendant corporation on
....Ipmtion' f0r 2 years.
'.I ~i.'i "* a t.sF "; .
't t.). Admulteration and misbranding of "Famous 20-240-0 Copper Mixture" and
t .. "JFarmrite 20-20-60 Copper Mixture." U. S. v. Central Chemical Corpora-
.:. lD' lon of Maryland. Plea of guilty. Fine $48 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2370.
n'.:n. ': ':: : .L'D. NoB. 8501, 8511.)
analysiss of "Farmrite 20-20-60 Copper Mixture" showed that the product
|i ied. 17.83 percent monohydrated copper sulphate, 30.63 percent total
i:e ingredients, and 69.37 percent inert ingredients.
4lysis. of "Famous 20-20-60 Copper Mixture" showed that the product
iaied 1.03 percent monohydrated copper sulphate, 16.93 percent total active
eents, and 83.07 percent inert ingredients.
.. .FeTruary 1, 1945, the United States attorney for the District of Mary-
S. ,estiflg upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
jnl.information against the Central Chemical Corporation of Maryland,
.g shipment in interstate commerce, on or about June 1, 1944, from Hag-
nn,. Md., to Chambersburg, Pa., of a quantity of an article labeled and
Sas "Famous 20-20-60 Copper Mixture," and, on or about June 16, 1944,
B..Hagerstown, Md., to Clarksburg, W. Va., of a quantity of an article
and known as "Farmrite 20-20-60 Copper Mixture."
e ... "Farmrite 20-0-60 Copper Mixture" was alleged to be adulterated
-ht ts strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality
E:L__lfe which it was sold, as the following statement was contained on its
,.tj-. j ,, :c~ W "a-
." *'Aifte Ingredients:
,,o, Hdrated Copper Sulp hate.. 20%
.. xH*
..... ...*. $... .._ .. ......
IK.--- ------------------------------------------------- --- 33.5%
.. ^ *::' 'q .^ / 1" *..-
.1 t I ----------------- ----------- ---------- -------- 66. 5%,,
SI 0. 0 *
|5 f mibe product contained less than 20 percent monohydrated copper sul-
tthan 33.5 percent total active ingredients, and more than 66.5 per-
4Ig .nM.t .ingredients.'
0t'pliuet was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement of ingredients
Mti in, the preceding paragraph, borne on the labels, was false and mislead-
n.ai,tby reason thereof, the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive
S; lead the- purchaser.
E-IA' :(Spa ous 20-20-60 Copper Mixture" was alleged to be adulterated in that
i ii:! h-th or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under which it
t:i:;.i l d,..as the following statement was contained on its label:
innnnMnynnn *** ***.^**WB' ^TL"" f '* f H ^^ ^h^ff


@ Ingredients:
opnp-Hydrated Cop er Sulphate -_ -... -.--.-..--.......


20.0%


-S-h-





618


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


ig :andi by reason thereof, the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive
a si Iad the purchaser.
:0.nFebti ry 23, 1945, a plea of guilty was entered, and the court imposed a fine
of 12 on each of the four counts, together with the costs of prosecution.
1919. Adulteration and nisbraning of 'Pine Oil Seven" and misbranding of
"Cenol Roach Destrodyer' t S 're Cenol Company. Plea of nolo coin-
tendere. Ene $400 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2374. I. D. Nos. 9456, 9462.)
Analysis of "Pine Oil Seven" showed that the product consisted of pine oil,
suilphonated oil, soap, and water, and a bacteriological test showed it to have a
phenol coeffiieut of 3.
Analysis of "Cenol Roach Destroyer" showedthat the product consisted of
sodium fluoride, boric acid, siliceous material, a small amount of starihy Qfij,
and coloring matter
On February 28, 1o4, the United Stat0 attorney for theNo
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secrfary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an informationagaint The Cenol C~npany, a corporation, alleging shipment
in interstate commerce, on or about Octoe r 19, 1943, from Chicago, Ill., to South
Bend, Ind., of quantities of "Pine Oil Seven" and "Cenol Roach Killer." The
"Pine Oil Seven" was an adulterated ant misbranded fungicide atifl~
Roach Destroyer" was a. misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The "Pine Oil Seven"' was alleged to e adulterated in that its strength or
purity fell below the professed standard o quality under which it was sold. The
statement, "Pine Oil Seven Germieide Disinfectant Antiseptic Coefficient 7,"
bne on the label affixed to the bottles purported and represented that said
product had a phenol coefficient not less than 7, whereas said product did not
possess a phenol coefficient of 7.
The "Pine Oil Seven" was alleged to te misbranded in that the statements,
"Pine Oil Seven Germicide Disinfectant Mtiseptic Coefficient 7 Pin
Oil Seven is effective as an aid to 9 *, killing germs *


Table of ilutiions


* *


Garbage Receptacle-
3 Teaspoonfuls to1 Quart of Water
Bathroom, Floors, Public Places, Etd.-
3 Teaspoonfuls to 1 Quart of Water
Washing carpets, Rugs, Woodwork, Etc.-
T 2 Teaspoonfulls to 1 Quart of Water
Telephone Mouthpieces---
2 Teaspoonfuls to 1 Quart of Water,"
borne on the labels affixed to the bottles containing the product, were false and
misleading and the product was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the pur-
chaser in that these statements ported and represented that the product had
a phenol coefficient of not less than 7; was effective as an aid in killing all germs;
and was a rpli bLe gerrnzde or disinfectant when used as directed whereas the
product did not possess a phenol coefficient of 7; was not effective as an. aid in
killing all germs; and was not a reliable germicide or disinfectant when us
as directed d.
The "Cenol Roach Destroyer" was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
the cartons containing the product did uft bear a statement giving faret
naie and percentage amount of each and every active ingredient and the total
aephentage amount of inert ingredients, i n lieus of this~ the
ecntoaf a. of eac and everd inert inggedicnt.lTientros,1'..
pT rage ddn t f Ses d pno cefint of 7;wsnt Th eie apa adi


percent amount 0o eacb anto ever inert ingred ien the labelr afwaser
_.1-- l.-^ 1, S a 1 A Sl 1 -j -i -





.. 26-192494]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


619


"1940. Iisbranding of "Boyer's 'SB' No. 106 Moth Crystals," misbranding and
. adulteration of "Boyer's 'SB' Stainless Fly Spray and Killer," misbranding
.. and adulteration of "Boyer's Kill-Em-All Ant Killer Powder," and mis-
: ,branding of "Boyer's Kill 'Em All Fly Killer Liquid." U. S. v. The Boyer
Chemical Laboratory Company, a corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine $100
.- a4md costs. (I. & F. No. 2353. I. D. Nos. 2387, 7198, 7197, 7200, 5831.)
S. imples of "Boyer's '3B' No. 106 Moth Crystals" were checked and found to be
.percent and 7.0 percent short in net weight. Analysis of "Boyer's '3B' Stainless


. 8 t ita and Killer" s
.. .. iweyanate. Upon
.t'wats found to consist c
..-. i salts, and organic
.......!.' e*''Kill 'Em All F
,omtaioing pyrethrum ex
...O-ti'eptember 5, 1944,
A.... inois, acting upon a r
,.'A%$4,court an information
'1#rpufation, alleging shi
a ".;m Chicago, Ill.,


HI.

..

I::: '
H "
S4


K:.! oSkO.Ill., to Porter, In
-. kh was misbranded wi
- about July 26, 1943, from
'.iL "St'aidless Fly Spray
..ithn the meaning of the
Oic.ago, "Ill., to Porter, -I
: *lar as misbranded an
*,19i0; and on or about
f :..tidgman, Mich.. of q
ha was misbranded w
:Tne product "Boyer's '3
at the statement "O0


showed that the
analysis of a sa
if 44,20 percent
c matter of the
Ply Killer Liqu
tract and arom
the United Sta
epprt by the S
)n against The


product consisted mainly of mineral oil
mple of "Boyer's Kill-Em-All Ant Killer"
sodium fluoride, small amounts of other
nature of starchy material. Analysis of
id" showed it to consist of mineral oil
atic material.
tes attorney for the Northern District of
secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis.
Boyer Chemical Laboratory Company, a


pments in interstate commerce, on or about October 2,
to Cranford, N. J., and on or about July 26, 1943, from


d., of qua
within the
Chicago,
and Kil
Insectici
nd.. of a


nti
me
Ill
ler
de
qu


ties.of "Boyer's
caning of the Ins
., to Porter, Ind.,
" which was mi
Act of 1910; on o
antity of "Boyer


d adulterated witt
March 10, 1942, :
uantities of "Boy'
within the meaning
B' No. 106 Moth C
ie Pound," borne


mean
ly 22,
11 'En
Inset
" was
labels


IB' No. 106
ecticide Act
of-a quant
stranded a
r about Jul.
's KiH-Em-


Moth Crystals"
of 1910; on or
ity of "Boyer's
nd adulterated
y 26, 1943, from
ll Ant Killbr"


ing of the Insetticide.
1942, from Chicago, .
2.All Fly Killer Liqu
:ticide Act of 1910.
alleged to be misbran
affixed to the cans,


ded
was


t'iU-and misleading and served to deceive and mislead


the purchaser because


.'...m product was less than 1 pound in weight.
". :.he .p.-roduct "Boyer's '3B' Stainless Fly Spray and Killer" was alleged to be
flsfranded in that the statement, "Contains in Combination, Insect Flower
H-** rtfaut (Pyrethrum Cinerarine-folium)," borne on the labels affixed to the
/.jtttloskthat contained the product, was false and misleading and served to
q. .miulead and deceive the purchaser. The statement purported antd represented
h.t.!tl he, product contained insect flower extract, whereas it did not contain
.. feet flower extract.
S.' be product "Boyer's '3B' Stainless Fly Spray and, Killer" was alleged- to
b .adulterated in that the statement, "Contains in Combination, Insect Flower
j.. H tt.. atet (Pyrethrum Cineraride-folium) *, borne on the labels affixed
Jk.. .o:t.bottles that contained the product, purported and represented that the
.vuct contained insect flower extract, whereas other substances had been sub-
:..t uted for insect flower extract.
flte,,product "Boyer's Kill-Em-All Ant Killer Powder" was alleged to be mis-
T*nded iD that the labels affixed to the cans that contained the product bore
...tatement "Active Ingredients Sodium Fluoride 47% Inert Ingredients, prin-
Il.Sy bait to entice 53%" which was false and misleading, and the
*C.. C was labeled so as to mislead and deceive the purchaser since it con-
..... les than 47 percent sodium fluoride and more than 53 percent inert
v., ients. --
product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength or purity fell
......the professed standard or quality unde* which it was sold. The statement,
$,ttee Ingredients Sodium Fluoride 47% Inert Ingredients, principally
WA~tM ontion inrnol-a 524S" hnirno on thoe 1nbalu ufirMd tn pinng thnt anntninea flhn




rTT C


i...eu INB

Ko o ies uproo

Keep it dosed for holr or so *
"Fr Moths Be-t and clean
'while still damp ~with mist,"
borne on the laees fie to tlE
and misleading and served to m
product when used as diretd
(clothes moths) and theicaims "
'em ie" were leading ince the
by these caims.
COn November 27 1944, o
lfe of $10 aandcosts.


1EUTICIDE ACT


[N. J.. i R.


Directions


m, spray room thoroughly, fining it with mist.
*


article well.


produ


Spray thoroughly.


Pack away


that contained the product, were fajae
and deceive the purchase rA LrSk
f llflies an wold jot &fimI
m All" and "Shoot it at 'em and watch
ct did not have the effectiveness implied


guilt was entered, and the court imposed a


1941. Adulteration and misbranding of "Tri-O-Pine 3-Way Pine Oil isinfeetant"
and misbranding of "Tri-0-CIde Liquid Moth Spray." U. S. v. Milton M.
Blank, Harold Blank, and Nathan Blank, a co-partnership, doing bnimaesm
wner thelstyle and trade name of Trio Chemical Works. Plea of guilty.
Eah of the partners e $200 on each of four counts. Tiotls I$f40.
SnSencee on cunts two, three, and four suspended and firm played a
probation for 1 year. (I. & F. No 376. I. D. Nos. 5545, 5550.)
An analysis of "Tri-O-Pine 3-Way Oil Disinfectant" showed that the
product consisted of mineral oil, pine oil, small amount of water, and an emul-
sifying agent, and that it had a phenol Iecient of less than 0.3.
Mi-analysis of "Tri-O-Cide Liquid *t Spray" showed that the product
consisted of a water solution of magnesi silicofluoride.
On April 18, 1945, the United States atprey for the Eastern District of New
Yorki acting upon a reprt by the Seeretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against Milton M. Blank Harold Blank, and Nathan Blank,
a co-partnership, doing Lbuinessauadet e and trade name of Trio Chemiaenl
Works, Brooklyn, N. Y., naUeing shipm in interstate commerce, on or about
July 31, 1944, from Brookly, N. Y., to IMsey City, N. J., of a quantity of "Tri-
O-Pine 3&Way Pine Winetant" hfih was an adulterated and misbranded
fungicide within the meaning of the insecticide Act of 1910, and, on or about
September 1944, from Brooklyn, M. Y., to Union City, N. J., of a quantity of "Tri-
0-Oide Liquid Moth Spray," which was a misbranded insecticide within the
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
In count one the product "Tri-O-Pine 3-Way Pine Oil Disinfectant" was alleged
to be an adulterated fungicide in that the labels affixed to cans containing the
product bore the words and figures as follows:


Pi
Coef.


Recommended
railroad stations


"Trio
Product
Tri-0-Pine
3-Way
ne Oil Disinfectant
3+-Inert Water 10%
1. Disinfects
2. Deodorizes
3. Cleans


for apartment houses, factories, public institutions, steamships,
wherever an effective, fragrant, pine-odor disintee
Soluble in Water .
Manufactured by
Trio Chemical Works




a.
Ej~4t *
-


H .... -
C..... .



.........
....
W..:. (.
....1
ib....J ...



I H ,..:


.... *' w4,


[>.l:.t:
d..
I,! *


'5-
*2
- S
d

IC
"4


OF JUDGMENT


621


B-199] NOTICES 4
+m,

uigtod lof mineral oil and water in
not have a phenol coefficient of 3+
.c.ries, public institutions, steamshi
q, count three, the product "Tri-O
a misbranded insecticide in that
p.roduct.bore the words and figure


.~. : --. "A TRIO
,.. PRODUCT
TRI-0-CIDE
Liquid
MOTH SPRAY
", j ,r :
i Maanufacetured with the finest chemical ingredients
.. really odorless and 100% non-inflammable, moth
e..ontrpl for furriers and clothing establishments,
: the extermination and control of moths, their eggs a
.-O-CIDE is guaranteed to mothproof the fabric t
Ihan two years and this guarantee is backed by a p
S"s of Lloyds of London.
I -0-CIDE is non-poisonous and non-inflammable.


product
houses,

eged to
itamining


available, this effective,
spray is recommended in
and is designed primarily
nd larvae.
related for a period of not
policy issued by the Under-


; VHOW TO USE
. -tr-proper protection, TRIOCIDE must be applied in sufficient quantity to
' !1nbiten pile or surface thoroughly. The quantity required for each job will
.. vary with the weight and weave, of the fabric. TRIOCIDN can be sprayed or
t'$niged on. Generally % of a pint is required to mothproof a 3 piece suit
S6k'over&vat; rugs 9 x 12 require 1 gal.; and 3 piece upholstered sets require 11 4
c ^gals.; others in proportion. TRIOCIDE will not harm garments that wafer
tio*'t..harm.
I ,- *.- :L Manufactured by
.,i .-li -i TRIO CHEMICAL WORKS
'*uy :-. Manufacturers of Sanitary Chemicals
.,.: : BROOKLYN, NEW YORK


:. -.
whereas the product consisted
i.t prevent, destroy, repel, or
...rentage amount of such ine
tr a statement of the name
'f3 ifeldal properties and the


: ..::
--IM


U. S. A."


partially of an inert substance (water), which did
mitigate insects, but did not have the name and
rt ingredient stated on the label, nor did the label
Sand percentage amount of the ingredient having
total percentage of inert ingredients.


In count four, the product "Tri-O-Cide Liquid Moth Spray" was alleged to
furtherr misbranded in that the labels affixed to the cans were false and mis-
ritdig and served to deceive and mislead the purchaser. They stated in part:
i-O-Clde Liquid Moth Spray* js designed primarily for the extermni-
itoiaf. .of moths, their eggs and larvae. Tri-O-Cide is guaranteed
motiproof the fabric treated for a period of not less than two years;" whereas
product when used as directed would not exterminate moths, their eggs,
l larvae, and would not mothproof under all conditions.
On May 14, 1945, the defendants pleaded guilty and on May 24, 1945, the court
iksied a fine of $200 on each of four counts for each partner. Sentence was
)ded on counts two, three, and four and the firm placed on probation for


1


k2. Mijbrani
v;. VeIN u
y y^ Pine 5
Anridvifx of'


ling of "Daile's Roach Pies." U. S. v. GlIllsa A. Daisgle, doing bust-
nder the style and trade name of Dalgle'a Products. Plea of guilty.
25. (I. & F. No. 2377. I. D. No. 7624.)
a sanmnip of "Dairl?'s Ronh Pios" showed that the nrodnet con-


excess of 10 percent, and (3) the
and would not disinfect apartment
ps, and railroad stations.
-Cide Liquid Moth Spray" was all
the labels affixed to the cans coz
* as follows:


D
I





622


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. j., I. i.


h#tr dtroy, oreel r mitigate
peref age amoIt of *aeh and every
theaejb, nor did 1 l bear a state
oil: ingredient having insecticidal
Ih~t tingredientt.
It was further misbranded in that it
or paris green containing arsenic and 1
percentage amounts of the total and wI
arsenjc.
In count two, the product was alleg


labels affixed to the cards bearing the caps
to deceive and mislead the purchaser. Th
1t0ach a l*: It keeps 'Em Out
dwat as Mh athe ppste Igsts,"' and (21
%is statement p t prted and represented
effevi eness MlAdi not possess, an
DoitsoWu toIiu hmap and pets, which sta
served to deceivb a im islead the purcha
roaches and was extremely poisonous to hi
On March 21, 4945, a plea of guilty was
of $25.


insects, but it did not have the name wnd
one of such inert ingredients stated on
ment of the name and percentage amount
properties and the total percentage of
was a product other than lead arsenate
the label did not bear a statement of the
water soluble arsenic expressed as metallic
ed to be further misbranded in that the


were
ie lab


* *
"Non
that t
id fur


false and misleading a
els stated in part: (1)
* Roaches will *
-poisonous to Humans,
he product possessed a
their that the product


I


nd served
"Daigle's
stay
or Pets."
degree of
was aon-


tement was false and misleading and
ser since the product would not repel
humans and pets.
entered, and the court


1943. Adulteratio and misbrasding of "Clora-Cleen."
erwtons of> 'loasCsOleen$ Dp of condemnati
struiwtion. (L & F Np. 2372 3D. 8521.)
analysis ofa sample of "Clorn-Cleen showed that ti
261 percenK eifdium hypoehlorite, together with other
sqdiumn carbonate, nd sodium biea rhonate.
On November 4, 1944, the United States attorney for th
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fil
a libel praying seizure and condemnatir f 83 fire-po
Cleen" at Baltimore, Mdi, a8e gg that the product had be
commerce, on or sabqpt Ait 22 1944, by the Chemi
tributing Company, ftno Easton, Pa., and charging that
branded and adulterated fungicide within the meaning ol
1910,
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its
below the standard or qality under which it was offered f
"'Calcium ILypochJoite 5%," borne on th labels affixed tc
and represented that the product contained not less tha
hypoohblorite, whereas the product did not contain
hypoeblorite.
BThe product was alleged to be misbranded in that it con
sibstpaces (substances other than calciu hypochlorite),
destroy, repel, o mitigate fngi (bact a), and did n
percentage amount of weah and eyery on f such inert in
labpl, nor did the label bear a statement of the name
amount of the ingredients haring fungicidal (bactericid
total percentage f ifert ingredie ts.
The product was uther mibraded that the sta
ehlrite 5%," borne on the labels affixed to the carton
leading and by reason thereof the product was labeled
deceive and mislead the purchaser. The statement pur
tl tw1strength or pity of the product was such tha
thaWi 5 "eiin At fc"aleiuni hypochlorite, whereas the


U. S. v. 83 ve-pounud
ion. forfeiture, an de-
ie product consisted of
r calcium compounds,

e District of Maryland,
ed in the district court
und cartons of "Clora-
en shipped in interstate
?al Manufacturing Dis-
the product was a mis-
f the Insecticide Act of

strength or purity fell
or sale. The statement
the cartons u o
n 5 percent of calcium
5 percent of calcium

sisted partially of inert
which did not prevent,
ot have the name and
igredients stated on the
and correct percentage
lal) properties and the

tement "calcium hyp-
is, was false and mis-
and branded so as to
ported and represented
it it contained not lss
product fell below the




jj.t: ._!, .
53B- .: :' "
H.El':;l l:f l
|:!.aS20-19491

b::.. .. .. th.e labels
ieaen.thereof, the


: -.[: i.. ,.-/" v p ,- j
lead.th" purchaser.
*Mea sterilizer 8-(
L.. rsflct in one ope
directed; whereas t
u / sed- as directed; v
.i obte'relied upon t
.: cle""a te was fu
h.-ora,'-Cleen *
mit^emns, was false a
.,.c 09,.ato deceive ai
,.. "presented that th
t,|inlufacturer of the
January 27, 1!
:',t.. O ;l and forfeiture
t~e,: .t stroy the produ
Cr A-
is IS:' :=
|flac. lIf branding o
fr.(. ." decree of co
.i/ k,^. I. !D. No. 8189
t .IExamination of th
: 'e ased' in qn egg-s
HsIi:,, at lalamounts of su
On November 30,
i. of Louisiana, acting
.e-. e district court p]
...." ~+.n+n.M
-thaf had been transp
A ^by personal delivery
': ex., to Shreveport,
.:' 'The'article contain
labeled, marked, and
iir.
.*f
*.....
i" "ii

i| ::. "This harmless, m
I- :frees from fleas, mit
.: H .- Put -a genuine "M
prt grow.
O : n :Qtains': 90 percent
.: :: .: !:*? .! ..'" Lime,' 2- p
; Naphthah


.... .' $a4.* LS ,'
*X:....v....
"..:--. .. .
"1 ...a" ..a

.. ** .. W
ri'j" *< .?3 <'


a ^.. ... 2 .
i. .....h i .....

..: .= -: .. -. : 0E a
.: .., B::he product was al


NOTICES


affixed
product
The st
I would
ration ;


JUDGMENT


623


to the cartons, were false and misleading a
was labeled and branded so as to deceive an
atements purported and represented that the p
sterilize when used as directed; would clea
and could be relied upon to disinfect when u


he product was not a sterilizer; would
vould not clean and disinfect in one
o disinfect when used as directed.
irther misbranded Ln that the statement
* T.,L"nli, tn'l fi,; 'nt I % T ,n. dlln 1+ S "v, n.


necs
nd mislea
nd mislea
ie Leeds
! product,
945, no cl


was entered,.
Let.


tdIHLLIU.maI ou., JUL..,
ding in that the pr
d the purchaser.
Chemical Compan;
whereas it was no
aimant having apf


nd by
d mis-
roduct
n and
sed as


d not sterilize when
operation; and could

"Lee-Chem Products


T1h1 '


fla i LIrIUICq 1J.LU.,
oduct was labele
The statement
y of Baltimore,
t the manufactui
eared, judgment


the United States


marshal


" borne on
d and bran
purported
Md., was
rer.
of conder


mna-


was ordered


f "Medi-Vest-Egg." U. S. v. 240 "Medi-Nest-Egis." Default
mndemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2375.
.)
e product showed that it consisted of two naphthalene balls
haped material composed chiefly of plaster of paris, with
lphur and calcium carbonate.
1944, the United States attorney for the Western District
on a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed a libel in
raying seizure and condemnation of 240 "Medi-Nest-Eggs"
sorted in interstate commerce, on or about November 6, 1944,
r by a salesman of Barger & Barger, from San Antonio,
La.
ned in the cartons when shipped in interstate commerce was
I branded as follows:


"MEDI-NEST-EGG"


dedicated nest egg 4
es, lice and other
[EDI-NESTEGG"'

t Plaster .of Paris
percent Sulphur, 2
mne Balls


disinfects the nest against poultry diseases,
pests, increasing egg production.
in each hen's nest and see your poultry


;, 6 percent Hydrated
percent Salt, 2


Pat. Pending


At all leading Feed Stores or direct from

BARGER & BARGER

it White Ave. K-8707 San Antonio, Texas."


el ged to be'a misbrd.nded


meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910 in
szgIdients which did nat prevent, destroy,
eacteria), and the label did not bear a st
I.1Geptage amounts of each and every inert


insecticide and fung
that it consisted ei
repel, or mitigate
atement of the cor:
ingredient and the


ricide with:
entirely of
insects or 1
rect names
fact they


n the
inert
Fungi
and
were


* sJ2ua1 ~. *** -





*I: a*IcIDE
U" *
**?** i-af


directed
Aid not


AU]!'


would n<
increase


Iititry profits to grow.
On February 20, 1 HO claint having appeared,
tibn and forfeit wi s entered the court, and t
detroyed by the ited States mnarl.
1945. Misbranding of Mann' Disinfecting Lubricant
Frank S. Horowitz, doing business under the
"Mann" Chemieal Corporation. Plea of guilty.
2856. I.DUNd. 8292.)
Analysis of a sample of Main' Disinfecting Lubrica
that the product consisted of mitheral oil, phenolic 1
essential oil, and probably a small amount of an oil solu
On September 1, 1944, the UItited Sttes attorney
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Sertary of Agricu
court an information against Frank S. Jorowitz, doing
and trade name of "Mann" Chemical Crporation, all
state commnrce, on.or about April 14, 1 from Avon,
GaliL. of a quantity of a product labI and known
Lubricant and Cleanser," which was a mIbranded fung
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
In count one, the product was alleged to be mnisbri
affixed to the bottles containing the prodit had the won


COUNTSS


[N.J., L.T


ot free nests from fleas,
egg production or cause
a judgment of condemna-
he product was ordered

and Cleanser." U. S. v.
style and trade name of
Fine $250. (I. & F. No.


nt and Cleanser" showed
bodies, small amount of
ble wetting agent.
for the District of New
lture, filed in the district
business under the style
eging shipment in inter-
SN. J., to San Francisco,
as "'Mann' Disinfecting
icide within the meaning
minded in that the labels
ds and figures as follows:


QUART


DISINFECTIN LUBRICANT
OLEAWSER"
SContains-Petroleum ither Fraction 49%-
Oil Gossypil Semr 40%-3ermicides, etc. 11%
FOR OONTIUOUSLY DISIISECTING AND LUBRICAT-
ING THB DENTAL flANDPIECE AND CONTRA-ANGLE.
It will not corrode, rust or gum the working parts.


BAICTERIOLOGIqALLY TESTED
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
(Between Treatment of Patents and at Close of Day)
STRAIGHT HANDPIECE: Tmmerse th lower half of straight handpiece in
the "Mann" Cleanser and run the machine for one minute or longerwmoc
wipe with cleansing tissue. (At close of eacb day remove lthel ,,fidf ciffi
relubricate spindle with "Mann" Disinfe ng Lubricant and Cleanser.)
ANGIE HANDPIECE: Attach contra- le to straight handpiece. Open burr
late so that Disinfecting.Cleaner will late freely between lower and upper
orifice. Imnerse angle Ihandpiece un I completely covered with '"Mann"
Cleanser and run the engine one minute, reversing occasionally. Remove angle
and with engine running, wipe with the cleansing tissue.
ALWAYS KEEP JAR TLE TO O CK WITH "MANN" CLEANSER


FOR ETNM


USE ONLY


"MANN" CHEMICAL CORP.
BRADLEY BNAOH NEW JERSEY,"


I




* *
... i..*: **
.. d. "I.- 20-1949] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 625
|;.':'...^ ] .^f .
iff .0.i. hut consisted chief of mineral oil, and contained less than 11 percent
, ,:.wienohc. bodies (germicides).
~ Iii count three, the product was alleged to be further misbranded in that the
..p.,jst agents,
': ... "Mann Disinfecting Lubricant .
-: For Continuously Disinfecting The Dental
..:, Handpiece and Contra-Angle .. .
!.],' i Bacteriologically Tested
Undpi'e Directions for Use .
. :". '* .. .
;tPI^-itnght Handpiece: Immerse the lower half of straight handpiece in the "Mann"
S;iase rand run the machine for one minute or. longer, remove'and wipe with
: l:eansing tissue. (At close of each day remove the sheath, clean and relubri-
A'Lstespindlde with "Mann" Disinfecting Lubricant and Cleanser.)
.:b .ie-H~ndpiece: Attach contra-angle to straight handpiece. Open burr latch
|.: that.Disinfecting Cleanser will circulate freely between lower and upper orifice.
V hmsaee angle handpiece until completely covered with "Mann" Cleanser and run
thei.gine one minute, reversing occasionally. Remove angle and with engine
Smuiibg,- .wipe with cleansing tissue,"
.
.. Ie labels affixed to the bottles containing the product, were false and
rn ipleadmn "and the product was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the pur-
c.. sr.. The statements purported and represented that the product would dis-
lfe;, oet:when used as directed, whereas the product would not disinfect when used
:ias 'Ea erected.
S n iOn (tober 7, 1944, a plea of guilty was entered and on October 28, 1944, the
.. eotrt imposed a fine of $250.
.:.. 1040. Adulteration and mnsbranging of "Greater New York Powder Brown No. 1."
':".: ':. .. U. S. v. Abe Mann and Harold Kaplan, co-partners, doings business under
-::. -: .. ., the style and trade name of Greater New York Exterminrting Company.
.i'" Plea of guilty. Fine $150. (I. & F. No. 2362. I. D. No. 5524.)
I:*a i ^*
!. .C, Occtober 25, 1944, the United States, attorney for the Southern District of
K J.N~e* York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against Abe Mann and Harold Kaplan, co-partners, doing
Business under the style and trade name of Greater New York Exterminating
i. Company, alleging shipment in interstate commerce, on or about August 26, 1943,
I.from New York, N. Y., to Newark, N. J., of a quantity of "Greater New York
:- Powder Brown No. 1," which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide
4:. within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
I:, In count one the product was alleged to be adulterated in that the labels affixed
t:ot the packages containing the product bore the statements "Inert Pyrethrum
%:'.-M1wers 99.9..Active Pyrethrins .1," whereas the product's strength or purity fell
ie:ln the professed standard or quality under which it was offered for sale,
|... i$ince the statements purported and represented that the product contained not
l'x-s tAi 0.1, percent pyrethrins and not more than 99.9 percent inert matter,
w whereas it contained less than 0.1 percent pyrethrins and more than 99.9 percent
Iirtzmantter.
: .couint two the product was-alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,
;dttbrt rethrui Flowers 99.9-_Active Pyrethrins .1," borne on the labels affixed


t!paeages containing the
labeled so as to deceive
.d and represented that
irins and. not more tha
inied less than 0.1 percent
count three the product
enentstr


product, were false and misleading and the product
and mislead the purchaser. The statements pur-
the product contained not less than 0.1 percent
n 99.9 percent inert matter, whereas the product
pyrethrins and more than 99.9 percent inert matter.
was alleged, to be further misbranded in that the


!





626


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


The statements purported atd rel esenfeadfthatthe product, when used as directed
wduld control roachep, ants, wateibugs, and clocks ( beetles), whereas tbeFt
when used as directed, woulld inot control roaches, ants, waterbugs, and clocks
(beetles).
On October 27, 1944, the defendgnt entered a plea of guilty and were fined $50
on each count, making a total of $lf.


1947. Misbranding of "All Purpose arden Dust." U. S. v. Douglas Si
pany. Found guilty by the count. )?ne $50. (I. & F. No. 23
7664.)
Examination,of a sample of "All Puirio Oatden Dust" showed that
contained free sulphur 53.3 percent, pyrethrin I, 0.01 percent, an
percen-t.
On September 15, 1944, the United Stats attorney for the Southen
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed an
in the district court against Douglas Si phur Company, a cqrporati
shipment in interstate commerce, on o about August 14, 1943, fro
Te.,to Shreveport, La., of a quantity o "All Purpose Garden Dust,'
a misbranded insecticide within the meal ng of the Insecticide Act of
In count one, the product was alleged to be misbranded in tha
affixed to the bags containing the prod ct were false and mislead
product was labeled so as to deceive Sd mislead the purchaser.
stated:

Wetting Agent --
h urar .. .... ..... ...... .- _---- .
Inert :. I


ulphur Conm-
59. I. D.No.
the product
ad ash, 31.0


a District of
information
on, alleging
im Houston,
" which was
1910.
t the labels
ing and the
The label


10%
50%
39%,"


whereas the statement was not correct because the active ingredients consisted of
suphur and pyrethrins in the pyrethrum owder, arid the remainder of the product-
wi s. inert .....
In count two, the product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,


S
Kills
Kills


"For Victory Gardens
All Purpose Garden Dust
the Inseets and Protects the Plants
All Sucking and Chewing Insects
* All Purpose Garden Dust


Isa a combinaion of insecticides and che cals that


. kills the insects


* S S


Dire" ons
A highly effective garden insecticide for control of many sucking and leaf eating
insects preying on vegetables, flowers, shrubs, vines and trees. Just sift on
plants like salt or pepper. Effective agaistlice and fleas on Dogs, Cats, Chickens,
etc .," "
borne on the labels affixed to the bags containing the product, were false and
misleadig and the product was labeledtjso as to deceive and mislead the pur-
chaser. The statements purported and represented that the product when used
as directed was an all-purpose garden dt, killed the insects and protected the
plants, killed all sucking and chewing insects, killed many sucking and leaf-
eatinginsects preying on the vegetation ied, and was effective against fleas and
lice on dogs, cats, chickens, and other afnals, whereas the product when used
as directed was not an all-purpose garden dust, would not kill the insects and
protect the plants. would not kill all sucking and chewing insects, nor many





1926-1949]


court a libel
Oil Disinfeci
in interstate
Company, fr
terated and
'190.


NOTICES


praying 'seizure and
tant" at Columbus, Ga
commerce, on or about
om Montgomery, Ala.,
misbranded fungicide


JUDGMENT


condemnat
., alleging
December
and charge
within the


The product was alleged to be adultera
oil, had been substituted in part for the a
Thejroduct was alleged to bemisbrande
f inert substances (water and mineral
repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria), and
amount of each and every one of such ine
did. the labels bear a statement of the n
ingredients having fungicidal (bactericidi
of inert ingredients.
The product was further misbranded
= ifffeCtant," borne on the labeling affixed
Sand served to deceive the purchaser. Thi


627


ion of 19 one-gallon jugs of "Pine
that the product had been shipped
9, 1943, by the Yel-O-Pine Medicine
ing that the product was an adul-
meaning of the Insecticide Act of


ted in that another substance, mineral
article, pine oil disinfectant."
d in that the product consisted partially
oil), which did not prevent, destroy,
lid not have the name and percentage
rt ingredients stated on the labels, nor
iames and percentage amounts of the
il) properties and the total percentage

in that the statement "Pine Oil Dis-
to the jugs, was false and misleading
e statement purported and represented


that thie product was exclusively pine oil disinfectant, whereas the product con-
Misted of line oil disinfectant and mineral oil.
.O November 10, 1944, no claimant having appeared judgment of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.


1948. Misbranding of "C
., "Ulen Guard Cu
ness under the
of guilty. Fine
Analysis of a sample
silted of "formaldehyde,
of soap, 0.68 percent, wa
Analysis of a sample
the product consisted of
of soap, 44.0 percent.
On September 13, 194


lien DeoCide Spray" and adulteration and misbranding of
tting-Oil Disinfeetant." U. S. v. Carl B. Lien, doing bhsl-
style and trade name of Lien Chemical Company. Plea
$150 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2361. I. D. Nos. 9366 and 9373.)
of "Clien DeoCide Spray" showed that the product con-
1.79 percent, perfume, 0.77 percent, fatty matter, nature
te;r, etc., 96.76 percent.
of "Clien Guard- Cutting-Oil Disinfectant" showed that
water, 56.0 percent, phenolic bodies and a small amount


4, the United


of Illinois, acting upon a report by
:district court an information against
style and trbde name of Lien Chemical
cOmmerce, from Chicago, Ill., to Mil
1943, of'quantities of "Clien DeoCide
* th'in the meaning of the Insecticide
*1944,. of quantities of "Clien Guard
ad*lterated and misbranded fungicide
of 1910.
SIin count one the "Clien DeoCide Spi
ntde in that the labels affixed to the bo
Sand figures as follows:
DIRECTIONSN: Apply with (
u WSyer, spraying directly on DEOCJ
.,qurce of foul odor, if possi- DEC
-i p. ..Spray into air toward (contains
ceiling fo destroy foul odor SANITATI


SWJIA&


- -
aroun
afl~ 1


b.e. sprayed directly on
seats, hinges, toilet
, urinals, etc.
r directly to floor
'd base of toilet bowls
nrlnals to dsatrnv nrlnr


Protec
Spread
Raisin


Health StaT
PerannAl 1


States attorney for the Northern District
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
t Carl B. Lien, doing business under the
I Company, alleging shipments in interstate
waukee, Wis., on or about November 22,
Spray," which was a misbranded fungicide
Act of 1910, and on or about February 18,
Cutting-Oil Disinfectant," which was an
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act

ray" was alleged to be a misbranded fungi-
ttles containing the product bore the words


CLIEN
IDE SPRAY
)DORANT
Formaldehyde)
ON. HYGIENIC
AND
tion Against
of Diseases.
g of General
LIEN
ndards. Uplift in
Rrvrinta flsahitn


CLIEN
DEOCIDE SPRAY
A powerful deodorant spray
to be used for quick, effective
destruction of most types of
foul odors. Leaves a refresh-
ing, mild scent in the air but
no lasting odor. A deodor-
ant, antiseptle and disinfeet-
ant solution.
CAUTION: Use glass jar
tvnri of unraver. if unasible.


.





628


INSECTICIDE ACT


[N. J.. I. P.


of ftie ntamean4-ferceCntag moainot of the ingredients having fungicidal (bacteri-
ci4)$>proprties and the total percentage of inert ingredients.
frtnt o thw product was alleged to be further misbranded in that the
statements, .
S'rotectiti against Spread of diseases *
A deodorant, antiseptiC and disinfttant solution. Apply directly to floor
atiund asf ofletbowls and urinals to destroy odor sources and germs,"
bWrne on the labels aBxed theabotpWge aiing the product, were false and
misleading andthe product was laeld e~po eive and mislead te rchaser.
Ihe statements pipoirted and rprent ed that the product would destroy all
odor sources and al germs, and th4*t waq further a disinfectant for all purposes,
as night have been implied, an.d col 4ye been relied upon for the protection
from the spread of disease, whereas the product would not destroy a.....q
sources and germs, was not a disinfeetaa~or all purposes implied, and could not
have been reied uponr for the protection 4id t the spread of disease.
In count three the 'lien Guard Cutting-Oil Disinfectant" was alleged to be
an adulterated funegiede in that the lae ied to the jugs containing the prod-
uct bore the words andfagures "Inert M10% Water," whereas the product's
strength or purity fell below the profess standard or quality under which it
was offered for sale, as said statement purrrted and represented that the product
contained not more than10 percentof *ter, whereas the product did contain
more than 10 percent water. -
In cott four the product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement
npr t iTatelO% rtrI pbore on the labels affixed to the jugs containing it,
was fa&pean4d mlsteadig, fdi it was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the
ptrchaser. The statement purported and represented that the product contained
not toreAthan 10 percent water, whereas contained more than 10 percent water.
In connt Ore the product was alegedo be further misbranded in that the
statements,
> ifting Ol Disfun eant *1

Protective Hygiene In Industry
Spre of D" **^ *:'^"i
1Protecton Against Spred of Diseases *
ClienGuard is a powerfuGermicide to be used in Cutting-Oils or Water-Emulsion
Cutting-Oils which are used as lub3rcntS and cooling agents during the cutting
of metals. Helpsprotet worke-e ad and bodies from infection caused by
bacteria contaminated oils. Workers han ling steel cutting machinery have their
skin cut many ~times daily by small lve of steel cuttings. Cutting Oil provides
an ideal place for putrefactive pus-fogn bacteria to grow. These bacteria
fl~d easy access to the cuts in work sk and as a result, boils and infec-
tions start to form. This serious mena can be guarded against by the use
of Clien Guard as diected. Dtin Teat Cutting Oils with Clien Guard
before use by adding one pintof l GUar to l gallons of Cutting Oil, lubricant
or cooling counpound (one part ClienGuar to 400 parts material). ClienGuard is
addled directly to Cutting 'OIls aInd pounds, and kills the pus-producing
germs. For General Disinfection: First remove all filth and dirt from
prexteStNo tbe ldtiscteh, then ee two tablespoonfuls of ClienGuard in an
oianary bucket that will contain 2% gallons of water and thoroughly sprinkle,"
thorf q nxit6 abes a ed to toja containing the product, were false and
m eadingmand the product was label as to deceive and mislead the pur-
chaser. The statements purported and represented that the product when used
nnnnrdinw +n 1ThP nnntA Ai-rortinnQ pnntfitntpg nTrntpnftiv hvomnno nr TpnrnorMny





fV
A.)9
*n.. ,
r~... '.1
Sb*.
C
!m~. 'I....
q. ~
* H..


~.fl
-.H.


v
--1926--19491


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


629


INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 1926-1949


S.All Purpose Garden Dust:
' .., Douglas Sulphur Company--
.Bor's "SB" No. 106 Moth Crystals,
.. .Buyer's "3B" Stainless Fly Spray
and Killer, Boyer's Kill-Em-AllI
Ant Killer Powder, and Boyer's Kill
.'Mm All Fly Killer Liquid:
". 'The Boyer Chemical Labora-
S. tory Company m.......-.... --


0..]B ,al,' :
B ycolife:
. .: ; Bynum Bycolife Company-....
-. Clien DeoCide Spray and Clien
., ...Guard Cutting-Oil Disinfectant:
.. Carl B. Lien ...------...
:k .. Lien Chemical Company --
ra-Cleen:


.. Chemical Manufacturing Dis-
>i|: tributing Company-----
Daigle's Roach Pies:
S1Gillise A.-Daigle---------
Dai e' Products --. -----......
f D & P Liquid Insecticide Soap and
S. : D & P 4 in 1 Spray:
: !D .Doggett-Pfeil Company...----...
. FPamous 20-20-60 Copper Mixture
and :Farmrite 20-20-60 Copper
<. ..Mlxtre;
Central Chemical Corporation
-of 'Maryland---...........
-Go-West Improved Insect Bait:
Agricultural Laboratories, Inc.
Greater New York Powder Brown
* ".No. 1:
Abe Mann and Harold Kap-
lan ----................. -
Greater New York Extermi-
nating Company------


[. No.
1947





1940

1933

1949
1949

1943

1942
1942

1937



1938

1929


1946
1946


N. J.


Harris' Original "Ant Buttons:"
Harris Products Co., Inc--__
Hi'-Tox-20:
Associated Chemists, Inc ....
Hi-Tcx-20:
Associated Chemists, Inc..---.
Jaygol Roach Abolisher:
Jaygol Products Corporation.
Laymon's Roach & Ant Food:
Herman B. Laymon.. _.....
World's Products Co....--....
Lime Sulfur Solution and Oil Emul-
sion:
H. A. DuBois & Sons, Inc ...--
"Mann" Disinfecting Lubricant and
Cleanser:
Frank S. Horowitz-----..-
"Mann" Chemical Corpora-
tion
Mechling's Arsenate of Calcium:
General Chemical Company._.
Medi-Nest-Egg:
Barger & Barger............
Mirra Moth Immunizer:
Mirra Chemical Laboratories.
Newco Stabilized Formaldehyde Dust:
Newco Manufacturing Corpo-
Sration ------ ----_--- ....-
Pine Oil Disinfectant:
Yel-O-Pine Medicine Company_
Pine Oil Seven and Cenol Roach De-
stroyer:
The Cenol Company.... -.. -
Tri-O-Pine 3-Way Pine Oil Disin-
fectant and Tri-O-Cide Liquid Moth
Spray:
Milton M. Blank, Harold
Blank, and Nathan Blank.-
Trio Chemical Works--


1931
1934
1935
1936
1926
1926

1927

1945
1945
1930
1944
1932

1928

1948

1939



1941
1941


! i







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA








3 1262 08582 5122tiliIIIWi i
3 1262 08582 5122


4


* .


* ; :17*


1***



V
It-
* icr,.
VL*

4. ... *1
.1~


4.
A"
H.





H
.

...:. *


Vt a
*. -
*1. *~IU
J.-..
.*. Jp.~.
-
V.. -.
*

A: C
I.
.
I .-
I
I
*
.4
*. ~. ...
4.
*
S is

*, A ii


in
*
*1':
*
C.



H*..

.-
..
4.
I *
..4.
I.
I C
.*. ~~.tJ1f