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:
AA00008549:00047

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text
9 I.


llB .I 'S,.1950-1975 .
j ...A..= :.* A.O."O


STATES DEPARTMENT OF


I-.
H


PRODUCTION AND MARKING ADMINISTRATION


1=
'Ii
Ph
K>
P


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE ACT


.4..
r
il
S. *
H. H....
PH~ i~A.
i:!I!U~


1950-1975


. of judgment herewith relate to cases instituted in the United States
s and are approved for publication, as provided in section 4 of the
SOf 1910 (36 Stat. 331).
E^ yC :" __^^
CL,1 eme. at* A^^*


tI A
H ~j
-
-~
1-


i.2 .:jj
A .


juof l"Kitehen Klenzer." IT.
It .40' 13-oUnee cans of "Ki
tM -.. forfeiture, and destruction
1tn of "Kitchen Klenzer" show
,s; carbonates of sodium, soap,
3. 1944, the United States atto


S. v. 681 eases, more or less, each
then Klenzer." Decree of con-
(I. & F. No. 2366, I. D. No. 9926.)
ed that this product consisted of
and a small amount of mineral oil. .
irney for the Eastern District of


ln.a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fil
i seizure and condemnation at St. Louis, Mo
and known as "Kitchen Klenzer," alleging that
interstate commerce, on or about May 1, 1944,
.fm Chicago, Ill., and charging that the pro
Within the meaning of the .Insecticide Act of
|r' @alleged to be misbranded i:n that it consisted
ii4ltw Id not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate f
" not bear a statement of .the correct names
a ahd every inert ingredient and the fact that the


ed in the
. of 681
the pro<
by the
duct wa
1910.
entirely


District
cases of
duct had
Midland
s a mis-


of inert


ungi (bacteria),.
and percentage
said ingredients-


. .1 l i" ... .. i!: .1 .
. was" alleged to be further isbranded in that the statement,
.. ..reeMoves Germs As You Clean Use for Antiseption r
.- )J," borne on the shippiu case labels, and the statements,.
ef. U SE Kitchen Klenzer fb:kAntiseptio n! (Antiseptic Action)
S* You Clean Elu. en Klenzer cleans antiseptically
. t Linolettm Sinks Stoves Sl knives Pots, Pans Kettles Kitchan
Igeraprs Painted Walls Milk Beo s a Windows Crockery Stone Steps
... ..olf Oahbs Mkheinery Aut' bile Tires, Parts and Chromium
epommended Especially for Bar- Rooms Porcelain Ename ware
^ 0*6*E lo Cleaning Oper4 g Rooms Surgical Igerr n ents


Issued May 194T


AGRICULTURE


.." Administrator,

*.. "::.., April 7,1947.
! i *.." ".
H:'.


Production and Marketing Administration.


..... ..-a. *^^v^i^:...


r






632k


INSECTICIDE ACT


[N. J.., L V.


exceptions to said libel. On June 13, 1945, the claimant filed an answer to the
liteL On June 29, 1945, the case was tried by the court, upon its merits. The
court, having considered all and singular the evidence, directed the parties to
file briefs for consideration. .
Thereafter, on November 19, 194$, after consideration of briefs submitted by
counsel, the court rendered the following decision:
"This is a libel filed by the United States under the Insecticide Act, Title 7,
U. S. C., Section 121, et seq., against 681 cases, more or less, each containing
40 13-ounce cans of 'Kitchen Klenzer'. The libel is based on and alleges that
said Kitchen Klenzer was intended to be used as a 'fungicide' within the meaning
of the act and that it was misbranded under the act, for two reasons: (1) That
it consisted of inert ingredients apd the percentage thereof was not shown;
.and (2) that certain statements appearing on the labels of the cans were false
.and misleading.
"The cans in question are cylindrical in shape, about 5 inches high and 9%
niches in circumference. Covering the entire side surface of the can is a paper
label, which states at the top the name, 'Kitchen Klenzer', and contains below a


picture of a woman admiring her reflection
.other writings. On the bottom of the label
picture, are the words in red on a white
Clean', and to the right of those words
for ANTISEPTION! (Antiseptic Action)'.
for the capitalized word 'ANTISEPTION ',


in a freshly scoured pan, and various
on both sides, immediately under the
background 'Remove Germs As You
are the words 'Use Kitchen Klenzer
The last phrase is in blue ink except
which is in red ink.


"In a thin strip on one side of the can, in a red background and reading
vertically, are the words 'Kitchen Klenzer cleans antiseptically Bath Tubs
Faucets Linoleum Sinks Stoves Steel Knives Pots, Pans Kettles Kitchen Floors
Refrigerators', etc. On the other side of the can, also on a red background and
reading vertically, are the words 'The Proved Cleanser That Cleans Faster
Lasts Longer-Recommended Especially for Bath Rooms Porcelain Enamel-
ware-Adopted by Hospitals For Cleaning Operating Rooms Surgical Instru-
ments Tables Marble Floors Mosaic, Tile',
"The manufacturer of Kitchen Klenzer, and claimant in this libel, is Fitz-
patrick Brothers of Chicago, Ill. They base their claim to the release of the
libeled product upon the ground that Kitchen Klenzer is not a fungicide within
the meaning of the Insecticide Act and was not and could not have been mi-
branded. The evidence has shown (and both parties admit) that Kitchen
Klenzer is made up entirely of inert substances and has no action other than a
scouring action similar to that contained in many other commercial scouring
powders. The claimant, therefore, bottoms its case principally on this admission
that Kitchen Klenzer is not in fact a fungicide or, in other words, will not kill
fungi. Therefore, the issue presented is whether, in spite of the fact that


Kitchen Klenzar is admittedly not a fungicide, it
jurisdiction of the Insecticide Act.
"Title 7 U. 8. 0., Section 126, provides in part that:


~can


still


con


Ii


'The introduction into any State or Territory or the District of (
from any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia,


any foreign country, or shipment to any foreign count
cide, or Paris green, or lead arsenate, or fungicide wh
or misbranded within the meaning of this chapter is h
(Emphasis supplied by the court.)
"Bection 188 provides fot the lieling of any such product
ct gives the followingdefiition of a fungicide:
?TeMeAerm "fungicide" as used in this chapter shall


e within


iolumbia
or from


ry, of any insecti-
ich is adulterated
iereby prohibited'.
and Section 122 of the

include any suh
jJ WI Sfl JW- na l tkUfl 4AA..,.


I






..*O1975]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


633


W :one;
pr8act
.... ftgieid
mThe
gross di
Wire ii
'tutende
Ith


and (2) whether, if the coverage of the act is broad enough, the particular
here has, as a matter of fact, held itself out or purported to be a
Ie.
first problem is relatively easy of solution. In the Insecticide Act Con-
d not merely prohibit the misbranding or adulteration of products which
i fact fungicides. It went further and included things which were
d to be used' as fungicides. This court does not believe that when it
Sword 'intended' Congress spoke ill-advisedly, or had in mind the manu-


trer's subjective intent as to the product's
. .protection of the public, and a reading of
t.. .Congress intended that the public be pro


efficacy.
the entire
tested not


a.... fungicides, but from the misbrandiag or adulter
.. ..41.elves out to be fungicides, and employed the w
'. ..In iferenceto objective intent as evidenced by what t
'-: :....ibe- Any other construction of this statute would
.."I' ... a manufacturer could actually label his product
."tk.fe application of the act by reservations and his own
1'. -. .,U,.~e second question, as to whether any, all, or
..; "'employed on these labels amount to evidence of an
.... '-.itehen .enzer be used as a fungicide, requires an a
H:i' veye. The label states 'Remove Germs as You Clean
.. for ANTISEPTION! (Antiseptic Action).' Do these
- !o r in combination, hold. forth that Kitchen Klenzer
The court believes that they do and would be so ta
regardless of what claimant's intent may have been.
..: '"The insecticide Act empowers the Secretaries of
S am Commerce to make rules and regulations to car


The act
chapter
only fri


ation of a
rords 'inti
the produ
lead to
a fungic
knowledge
the comb
objective


lii
Bfl(


was passed for
* convinces one
om misbranded
matters holding
led to lie used'


ct holds itself out
thle absurd result
ide and yet aioid
e of its inefficacy.
nation of words
intent that said


analysis of the thought con-
' and 'Use Kitchen Klenzer
words, either used singly
is an effective fungicide?
ken by the general public
the Treasury, Agriculture,
ry out its provisions, and


pursuant to that power a regulation has been promulgated to define 'furgi'. It
.reads:.
A '"Fungi" means all non-chlorophyll-bearing plants of a lower order
than mosses and liverworts (i. e. non-chlorophyll-bearing thallophytes),
ase, for example, rusts, smuts, mildews, molds, yeast, and bacteria.'
"'rom this definition it can be seen that 'fungi' includes bacteria, and the
expert evidence introduced in this case conclusively authenticated the regulations
in tiis. Therefore, anything that prevents, destroys, repels, or mitigates bacteria
would be a fungicide. The label refers, however, to germs and antiseption. A
'germ', in the popular sense, is certainly a reference to bacteria, and to say
'IRzmove Germs As You Clean' is certainly an intimation that the product wil
eradicAte bacteria or fungi. The claimant, Fitzpatrick Brothers, however, argues
In defense of this sentence that any scouring matter removes germs, in the sense
that it displaces them from one locale to another, but that that sentence does not
say that the germs will be destroyed as by a fungicide. But looking at the
sentence as a whole the court believes that there is a very definite implication in
it that the germs (meaning bacteria) will be more than displaced. The word
'Remove' is frequently used in the sense of 'to get rid of' or 'to eradicate', as in
the illustrative sentence given by Webster, 'to remove the causes of poverty.'
Thls read, to say a thing removes germs would be tantamount to saying it prevents,
destroys, repels, or mitigates them within the meaning of the statute.
"But these words are not alone or the most obnoxious ones. The references to
'ANTISEPTION!. (Antiseptic Action),' to antisepticallyy', and to the product's
hospital users, appear to the court even more of a representation that the product
will destroy bacteria or fungi. Webster's New International Dictionary defines
4A.nye4mawnJsn1 a A nd-Mannfid awarl taflnaa A na OTaia' aocc






634 ISE CIhE ACT [N. J..I.

The words are certainly on the labt for some purpose, and to the court they
most certainly convey a meaning that Kitchen KIenzer will do more than scour.
In Bradley vs. United States, 264 Fed. 79, referring to a label on a bottle, the Fifth
Circuit Court.of Appeals very aptly Said:
'Unless this means that the watex did contain elements or ingredients
which would alleviate or cure tb diseases named, when taken accord-
ing to the directions thereon contained, it was g waste of printer's ink.I
., .- r "-' '- X ^ ^i. *i '
Paraphrasing this, the court is at a loss to know why the claimant wo
printer's ink (and some of it red) uress some inference was sought by this label
over and beyond that of a pure clea ing agept. The court is aware that many
people might know that Kitchen Kletzer is inert and would not be fooled by the
label, but the fact that the untruth my be patent to some and may not mislead the
person of discernment is, of course no defense if the product is in fact mis-
branded. This court, however, can ery well conceive how a not unreasonable
person, relying on this label, might roneously employ the accused product for
disinfecting dishes from a sickrooM, or some such inappropriate use. The
Supreme Court of the United States, in U7. vs. 95 Barrels of Vinegar, 265,
U. S. 438, a case under the Food and Drug Act, said:
'The statute is plain and direct Its comprehensive terms condemn every
statement, design, and device which may mislead or deceive. Deception
may result from the use of statements not technically false or which
may be literally true. The aim of the statute is to prevent that result-
-ing from indirection and ambiguity, as well as from statementsmis
are false. It is not difficult to choose Statements, designs, and devices
which will ot deceive. Those which are ambiguous and liable to mis-
lead should be read favorably tethe accomplishment of the purpose of the
act. The statute applies to fod, and the ingredients and subjtanc
contained therein. It was enacted to enable purchasers to buy fooWiY5
what it really is.' (Italics supplied.)
The reasoning there can well be applied to the case of Kitchen Klenzer although
the court is of the opinion that th deception here is neither indirect nor am-
biguousj but clear and direct.
"The court therefore holds that the accused cans of Kitchen Klenzer are
fungicides and within the jurisdiction of the act, and since they do not bear
on their labels the names and anxunts of inert ingredients, as required by 7
U. S. C., Section 131, are as a matter of law misbranded. In addition, however,
the court is of the opinion that even were the inert ingredients stated on the
labels, for the reasons previously discussed, misbranding would be prA.h-
cause the labels deceive or mislead within the meaning of that part of
which reads:
'* For the purpose of this chapter an article shall be deemed
to be misbranded in the ease of af i a
if it be labeled or Jbranded so as to deceive or mislead the
purchaser. *' 7 U. S4., Section 131.
Therefore, a judgment will be entered overruling eth claim 4
Brothers and ordering the product condemned. Counsel will forthwz mu mi
Findings of Fact and Conclusiontf Law and a proper decree for a*rjvn
signature."
Thereafter on the 18th day of Jcember 1945, the court rendered its decree and
directed that the product be des yed.





I


|| ,l "H
ii .
|.:. ;650-4975] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT
il:'.1:Hi~ *':
* H"...":
I.. "44PPed in interstate commerce, on or about August
:; emical Corporation, from Philadelphia, Pa., and
... ;fas a misbranded fungicide and insecticide within the
SBO:". "^ "':A "j &j t ^ 4 ^
Ac't of 1910.
";...The product was alleged to be misbranided in that tl
lpSour and Antiseptic Kills Germs *
;i.....ur. and Antiseptic for Colored Work Mot
S'"4 .'":lsa affixed to the barrels containing the product,
;EZ by reason thereof, the product was labeled so
E; : :4wbauers since it was not a germicide and antisepti
S' claiiied, nor repel moths.
| ;2" n April 21, 1945, Crescent Chemical Corporation,
5 truth of the allegations of the libel and having c
n. ,. judgment of condemnation and forfeiture
SH :ered that the product be released to the claimant


ider supervision of the Insecticide D:vision of the
ariculture so as to comply with the requirements of
910.


635


28, 1944, by the Crescent
charging that the product
* meaning of the Insecticide
he statements, (1) "Germl-
* *" and (2) "Germitex
h Repellent," borne on the
were false and misleading
as to deceive and mislead
c and would not kill germs
claimant, having admitted
onsented to the entry of a
was entered, and it was
under bond to be relabeled


S. Department
Insecticide Act


I~. :::: Adulteration and misbranding of "Pine 011 Disminfeetant." U. S. v. Maurlee
r ':' Ofdoingy aon s tw n Phroducts.deots&
.lir ,: =: erns, doing business as Benmar Products. Count one dismissed. Plea
|:.* .f guilty on counts two and three. Fine $100 and costs. (I. & F. No.
;:i..=: 2384. I. D. No. 10010.)
..... An analysis a sample of "Pine Oil Disinfectant" showed that this product
' KoDnsinsted of 51.5 percent water, 1.2 percent sodium oxide, 9.2 percent rosin aud
I :.. Isttyanhydride, and 38.1 percent pine oil.
-' -: On December 19, 1945, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
S.^': fo'iS acting on a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
..B1:an information against Maurice Kerns, doing business under the style

':% .t about October 25, 1944, from Chicago, Ill., to Shreveport. La., of a quantity
:, "-tZ?1e Oil Disinfectant" which was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide
: .w tlinBthe meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
*H" I *4 ii ount one the product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength or
id:: ty fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold
',O" 'J oe: the statements (1) "Pine Oil Disinfectant Guarantee We
: ....l eWi guarantee this disinfectant to have a phenol coefficient of 5 plus (II.
::. *::4.us-F. D. A. method)" anW (2) "Pine Oil Disinfectant We
.', iShe reby guarantee this disinfectant will conform to all requirements
* S:i:ptlit standard adopted by the National Association of Insecticide and Dis-
..:-';: in tanf Manufacturers, Inc., and recorded as Commercial Standard CS 69-38
*. *".- I the National Bureau of Standards of the U. S. Department of Commerce,"
1.1 born on the labels affixed to the jugs containing said product, purported and
ili:. presented (1) that the product had a phenol coefficient of not less than 5 plus
.11 . i:4 b:rthe National Association of Insecticide and Disinfectant Manufacturers,
-. ..nin, and recorded as Commercial Standard CS 69-38 by the National Bureau of
; i: ^Standards of the U. S. Department of Commerce, whereas the product did not
4 :4 fev aphenol coefficient of 5 plus, and did not conform to all requirements of
: .the standard claimed.
:.: In count two the product was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted
partiallyly of an inert substance (water), Which did not prevent, destroy, repel,
.or mitigate fungi (bacteria), and the name and percentage amount of such inert
Sjnredient were not stated on the label, nor did the label bear a statement of the
Snames and percentage amounts of each and every ingredient having fungicidal
i e m a i -. .. a-@ .d 'ai





036 It acElCIDE [N. J.,I. r.

and mislead the purchaiser becau'* ~d statements purported and represented
(1) that the product had a phenol cdefficient f 5 pIp! and (2) that the paftflrt
would conform to all requirements 4f the s4 dard adopted by the National
Association of Insecticide and Disinfectant Manufacturers, Inc., and recorded as
Commercial Standard CS 69r-38 by the National Bureau of Standards of the
United States Department of Coomperce, whereas the product did not have a
phenol coefficient of 5 plus, and d4i not conform to all requirements of the
standard aforesaid, as claimed.
On January 28, 1945, the defendant moved to dismiss count one, and entered
a plea of guilty to counts two and three. The motion was granted by the court,
and a fine of $100 and costs were imposed.
1953. Adulteration and misbranding of "Old Xte&'s Seed Treatment." U. S. v.
2,216 pint containers, more or less, of "Old Nick's Seed Treatment."
Decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (L & F. No. 409.
I. D. No. 10879.) N e T
An examination of samples of "Old Nick's Seed Treatment" disclsS
product consisted of coal-tar creosote. -
On June 17, 1946, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Iowa,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district courf a
libel praying seizure and condemnation at Sioux City, Iowa, of 2,216 pint con-
tainers, more or less, of "Old Nick's Seed Treatment" alleging that the product
had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about January 15 and March 31,
1944, from Rockport, Mo., and charging that the product was an adulterated
and misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the uInsecticide Act of 1910.
The shipment was made by the Old Nick Seed Treatment Company of Rockport,
Ml o.
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength or purity fell
below the professed standard or quality under Which it was sold since it was
labeled, "Active Ingredients Cresols 305% ," whereas the product
contained less than 3.05 percent creosols. "
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the foregoing label statement
of ingredients was false and misleading and the product was labeled so as to
deceive and mislead the purchaser.
The product was alleged to be further misbranded in that the statements,
"Old Nick's Seed Treatment Helps protect corn from *
heart bugs, wireworms or any pest that attacks seed in the ground.
* Results guaranteed. One tablespoonful to one and one-
half gallons of corn mixed in planter box. Mix thoroughly. Do not mix and
allow to dry,"' borne on the labels affixed to the containers in which the prod-
uct was packed, were false and misleading and served to deceive and mislead
the purchaser in that said product, when used as directed, would not help pro-
tect corn from heart bugs and wi worms and all other seed-attacking pests in
the ground.
On July 30, 1946, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction was entered, and it was ordered that the product
be destroyed. .


1954. Adulteration and masabrand g of "Inseetlyn DDT B5%."
E. Storey and Arthur M. NHrtman, co-partners, doing bi
style and trade name of Lynwood Products Company.
defendant 4ynwood E. S*rey; information dismis.ed
Arthur M. Hartman; fine 91 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2398.


U. S. v. Lynwood
business under the
Plea of guilty by
as to defendant
I. D. No. 11942.


Examination of a sample of "Tsectilyn DDT 5%" disclosed tfiat
was a mineral oil solution of a cBlorinated compound equivalent to 0.026 percent
Tfllhlonr Tflnhoanl r1Tinhlnrnnathaa nInTm1








* 1$5-19751
* V


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


637


aep ented
apt les tha
Swgth and
under which

:ih produ
'lent with rn
.ag and the
On October
an were a


that its standard or quality was such that the product contained
in 5 percent of Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethane, whereas the
Purity of said product fell below the professed standard or quality
it was sold in that the product contained less than 5 percent


ct was a
aspect to
product
r 9, 1946
rraigned


alleged to be misbranded in


Did
was
, the
and


that the foregoing label state-


iloro Diphenyl Trichiloroethane was false and mislead-
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
Defendants Lynwood E. Storey and Arthur M. Hart-
entered a nlea of ruiltv. On November 13. 1946. the


I.: ... permitted the defendant Hartman to withdraw his plea of guilty, and
. l.'aWn motion duly made the information was dismissed as to him. The de-
H,, .1 Ri.4 ant Lynwood E. Storey was fined $1 and costs.
: :Mi1. Misbranding of "Spraymaster Aerosol Insecticide Dispensers." U. S. v.
:.:;2,:::: 75 "Spraymaster Aerosol Insecticide Dispensers," more or less. Default
l!.:... decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2419.
Hq:^ I. D. Nos. 949, 950.)
H.I An examination of "Spraymaster Aerosol Insecticide Dispensers" showed that
| t his product consisted of a propellant of the nature of Freon 12, DDT, pyrethrins,
H3dfitneral oil, water, and probably an aromatic petroleum derivative solvent.
:: .On AugWst 5, 1946, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia,
!ae!ting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 275 "Spraymaster Aerosol Insecticide
diiipensers," more or less, at Washington, D. C., alleging that the product had
l::::e~an shipped in interstate commerce, on or about July 2 and July 19, 1946, from
|f (uston, Mass., to Washington, D. C., and charging that the product was a mis-
1'; branded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The ship-
H .i.ent was made by The Spraymaster Corporation.
p-{ ..The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the labels affxed to the
1 -fh/ttaiaers in which said product was packed stated in part:
iSpraymaster Aerosol Insecticide Dispenser With 5% DDT and Pyrethrum
.i i,: Self-propelled by Freon 12 expanding into a very fine mist which per-
H. atea every nook and corner of room To operate Spraymaster-
I;I zove tape from valve. 2. Hold dispenser upright with arrow pointing away
Hl H i 0'Jdon. 3. Turn valve down to start spray and up to stop. DO NOT OI'EN
|IH ~' to % TURN. 4. Release insecticide into the air. Keep spray at
I.ii- ,1Sne foot away from objects. 5. Spray average room 4 to 6 seconds. Use
*.'I: =:fl45Agly. 7. Avoid direct contact with woodwork or cloth-
,,i* Effective Against Flies Mosquitoes Ants Moths Gnats .
!?IT AiPS Silverfish Spraymaster Contains Sufficient Aerosol Insecticide To Spray
.-2 v^'erage Size Rooms."
:,:.: "M. manufacturedd to conform with prescribed formulations of Dept of Agricul-
i Ie under U. S. Patents Nos. 2321023 and Re Pat. No. 22700. Others Pending.",
II.:. Which statements purported and represented (1) that said product formed an
H vic"..JP which expanded into a fine mist when the bomb or dispenser was operated
i::: directedd and which would control flies, mosquitoes, ants, moths, gnats, wasps,
:KH il sh if used as directed, ao was
H *lSrWsh it u- directed, and (2) that the bomb or dispenser was manuu
iiii' :..::. ,m


i.red to conform with prescribed forn
i":: S eulture under U. S. Patents No. 2321K
S"..tending whereas the said product d
t. .oe a fi ne mist when the bomb was opera
cu, ,. ,: ,'.
*t:: eptrol flies, mosquitoes, ants, moths
.as "directed; and the product did not coz
I!!!H HThe product was further misbranded
"t of 1910 as the said product consisted


nulations of the U. S. Department of
323 and Re Pat. No. 22700, with other
lid not form an aerosol which expanded
'ated as directed and the product did
, gnats, wasps, and silverfish, if used
form to the formulations designated.
within the meaning of the Insecticide
partially of inert substances (dichloro


,r.
hi:;


I


I







N"


038

1950.


An
consis
and 7f


flQUBCTICIDV2 ACT [N. .. I. V.

Adulteration and misbrandin of "Bartender Pine Disinfeetant." U. S. v.
27 one-gallon jugs, more or less, of "Bartender Pine Disinfeetant." De-
faultdeeree of condemnation and fortelture. Product ordered delivered
to the custodian of the Post Oflfiee Building at East St. Louis, I11., for use
in cleaning and disinfecting. (I. & r 2400. I. D. 12159.)
examination of "Bartender Pine Disinfectant" showed that this product
ted of soap, pine oil, isopropy"alcohol, a small amount of phenolic bodies,
percent of water.


On March 6, 1946, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 27 one-gallon jugs,
more or less, of "Bartender Pine Disinfectant" at East St. Louis, Ill.; alleging
that the product had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about December
6, 1945i, from St. Louis, Mo., and charging that the product was an adulterated
and misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The shipment was made bythe U-San-O Corporation.
The product was alleged to be alu1terated in that its strength or purity fell
below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold since it was
labeled "Inert material not to exceed 15% Water," whereas the product con-
tained more than 15 percent water.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "Inert
material not to exceed 15% Water," borne on the labels affixed to the jugs
containing the product, was false and misleading and served to deceive and mis-
lend the purchaser, since the product contained more than 15 percent water.
On April 24, 1946, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the product be delivered to
the custodian of the Post Office Building at East St. Louis, Ill., for use in
cleaning and disinfecting.
1957. Misbranding of "Spraymaster Aerosol Insecticide Dispensers." U. S. v.
400 "Spraymaster Aerosol Enseeteide Dispensers," more or less. Default
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (L & F. No. 2421.
I. D. No. 13465.)
An examination of "Spraymaster Aerosol Insecticide Dispensers" showed that
this product consisted of a propellant of the nature of Freon 12, DDT, pyrethrins,
mineral oil, water, and probably at aromatic petroleum derivative solvent.
On August 12, 1946, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, acting upon a report y the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seipre and condemnation of 400 "Spraymaster
Aerosol Insecticide Dispensers," tore or less, at Milwaukee, Wis., alleging
that the product had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about May 31,
1946, from Boston, Mass., to Mil aukee, Wis., and charging that the product
was a misbranded insecticide hin the meaning of the Insecticide Act of
1910. The shipment was made byl The Spraymaster Corporation.
The product was alleged to be msbranded in that the labels affixed to the con-
tainers in which said product was acked stated in parr:
"Spraymaster Aerosol Insectic e Dispenser With 5% DDT and Pyrethrum
* Self-propelled by Freon 2 expanding into a very fine mist which per-
meates every nook and corner room To operate Spraymaster-
1. Remove tape from valve.
2. Hold dispenser upright with rrow pointing away from you. .
3. Turn valve down to start sp y and up to stop. DO NOT OPEN BEYOND
4 to % TURN.
4. Release insecticide into the ir. Keep spray at least one foot away from
objects.
.-a W-- 1-- -- C-"SK





1950-1975]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


639


' gnats, wasps, and silverfish,
yiser was manufactured toc
Department of Agriculture u
..:... with other patents pending,
.which expanded into a fine
the product did not control.
.'sftverfish, if used as directed
. rmulations designated.
i.' .....The product was further


if'used as directed, and (
conform with prescribed
nder U. S. Patents No. 2321
whereas the said product
mist when the bomb was
1 flies, mosquitoes, ants, r
id; and the product did n


misbranded within


2) that the bomb or dis-
formulations of the U. S.
023 and Re Pat. No. 22700,
did not form an aerosal
operated as directed and
noths, gnats, wasps, and
ot conform to the official


the meaning of the


Insecticide


A...F... of 1910 as the said product consisted partially of inert substances (dichloro
..i.fli wro methane and water), which did not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
Ip uects, and the names and percentage amounts of each and every one of such
Sinert ingredients were not stated on the label affixed to the containers in which'
:' the product was packed nor did said label bear a statement of the names and
,.percentage amounts of each and every ingredient having insecticidal properties
MlI.,"and the total percentage of inert ingredients.
~.: On November 14, 1946, no claimant having appeared, default decree of con-
.i".tmnation, forfeiture, and destruction was entered and the United States marshal
7 was ordered to destroy the product.
I 1958. Adulteration qnd misbranding of "EE Z Bleach." U. S. v. 594 half-gallon
|.. containers and 96 gallon containers, more or less, of '"E Z Bleach." Con-
,:"* sent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product released to elaunim-
f*:::. ant for relabeling. (I. & F. 2399. I. D. No. 11968.)
iE.i ..Examination of samples of "E Z Bleach" showed that this product was a
.sodium hypochlorite solution, and contained 4.76 percent of sodium hypochlorite.
.. .On January 7, 1946, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
?" Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
,:.court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 594 half-gallon containers and
ti gallon containers of "E Z Bleach" at Des Moines, Iowa, alleging that the
eroduct had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about October 29, 1945,
,.from Peoria, Ill., and charging that the product was an adulterated and mis-
I branded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The ship-
Iment was made by the Central City Pickle Company.
I .. e product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength or purity fell
t.bslow the professed standard or quality under which it was sold since it was
..labeled "Active Ingredients: Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by weight, Inert Ingre-
.H. tents 94.75% by weight," whereas the product contained less than 5.25 percent
ftKMUU.'m hypochlorite by weight and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients
by, B weight.
* i:'W..i lhe product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "Active Ingre-
,dients: Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by weight, Inert Ingredients 94.75% by
I'iwight," borne on the labels affixed to containers of the product, was false and
r:" miSleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the product
CH contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite by weight and more than
4.175 percent inert ingredients by weight.
I. .'LOU April 11, 1946, the Central City Pickle Company having appeared as claimant
. id .., admitted the allegations of the libel, a decree of forfeiture and condemna-
,.1liii..0on was entered and it was ordered that the product be released to the claimant,
(.Iunder bond, to be relabeled so as to comply with the requirements of the Insecti-
H eiMe Act of 1910, such relabeling to be done under the supervision of the United
p:S, tats marshal.
**!'ie~xK f :. ."
:"::::..:: :"E :,'H
E"'i:r!'"3!:.
I.A'ut::9. Adulteration and misbranding of "Pine Oil Disinfeetant." U. S. v. 7 five-
.. .. I .. a e n n l' U -. a a eqa a- a J J a


gallon Arnwns of Pine Oil DIsinfeetant. Default decree of condemnation
and forfeiture. Prodnet ordered destroyed. (I. & F. No. 2891. I. D. No.
1 18 0 5. 1






640 INS TIDE ACT

Ill., by the Benmar Products, and charging tlatfrhe product was an aduterated
and misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide-Act of 1910
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength or pu
below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold, as the state-
ments, (1) "Pine Oil Disinfectant Guarantee We hereby aran-
tee this Disinfectant to have a phenol Coefficient of 3 plus (B. Typhos!
Method)," and (2) "We hereby guarantee this Disinfectant *
form to all requirements of the standard adopted by the National Asiocia ton
of Insecticide and Disinfectant Manufacturers, Inc., and recorded as Commercial
Standard OS 69-38 by the National Bureau of Standards of the U. S. Depart-
ment of Commerce," borne on the labels affixed to the drums containing the
product, purported and represented that the product had a phenol coefficient
of 3 plus (B. Typhosus-F. D. A. Method), and that the product conformed
to the requirements of the standard adopted by the National Association of In-
secticide and Disinfectant Manufacturers, Inc., and recorded as Commercial
Standard OS 69-88 by the National Bureau of Standards of the U. S. Department
of Commerce, whereas the product did not possess a phenol coefficient of 3 plus
(B. Typhosus--P D. A. Method), and did not conform to the requirements of
the standards adopted by the National Association of Insecticide and Disinfectant
Manufacturers, Inc.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements1 %Pine
Oil Disinfectant Guarantee We hereby guarantee this Di e t
have a phenol coefficient of 3 plus (B. Typhosus-F. D. A. Method)," (2) "We
hereby guarantee this Disinfectant will conform to all requirements
of the standard adopted by the National Association of Insecticide and Disin-
fectant Manufacturers, Inc., and recorded as Commercial Standard CS 69-38
by the National Bureau of Standards of the U. S. Deparmtent of Commerce," and
(3) "Disinfeets, Directions Use a solution of 1 part
70 parts water *," borne on the labels affixed to the drums containing
the product, were false and misleading and the article was labeled and branded
so as to deceive and mislead the purcbser, because the statements purporteanioi
represented (1) that the product possessed a phenol coefficient of 3 plus (B.
Typhosus-F. D. A. Method), (2) that the product conformed to all the require-
ments of the said standard claimed, and (3) that the product could be relied
upon to disinfect when diluted as directed, whereas (1) the produt)
posess a phenol coefficient of 3 plus (B. Typhosus---F. D. A. Method), (2) did
not conform to all the requirements of the standard adopted by the National
Association of Insecticide and Distifectant Manufacturers, Inc., and (3) could
not be relied upon to disinfect when diluted as directed.
The product was further misbranded in that it consisted partially of an miner
substance (water) which did not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or
fungi (bacteria), and the product did not have the name and percentage amount
of each and every one of such inert ingredients stated on the label, nor did
the label bear a statement of the name and percentage amount of the ingredients
having insecticidal or fungicidal (Jiactericidal) properties and the total percent-
age of inert ingredients.
On September 18, 1945, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was entered an9 it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
1960. Misbranding and adulteration of Banner American Beauty Pine Oil Dis-
infeetant." U. S. v. Thred 55-gallon drums of "Banner American Beauty
Pine Oil Disinfectant." Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
(I. & F. 2392. I.D. No. 958I)
An ayrc' n inan-an ivP tliWanrta~. A uiSnn, flarC Dfal- TA;, 1 nl;nfntan+'1 oh Tral




Ht.

H 1050-1975] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 641

i. oil and water had been substituted in part for the product, that is to say, for
pine oil disinfectant made from pure steam distilled pine oil.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that it contained inert ingredi-
Sents and its labels failed to bear a correct ingredient statement, as provided by
law, and in that the statement "Inert Material (water) not over 15%," borne
wP on the labels affixed to the drums containing the product, was false and mis-
leading, and, by reason of this statement, the product was labeled so as to
Deceive and mislead the purchaser since the product contained more than 15
percent water, and it contained an inert ingredient in addition to water, namely,
D: mineral oil.
Hx* The product was alleged to be further misbranded in that the statements,
: "Banner American Beauty Pine Oil Disinfectant Banner Pine Oil
SDisinfectant Directions and uses For Urinals and Toilets *
I:. They should be cleaned daily with a pail of water containing %. Pint of Dis-
S infectant to every 10 quarts of water," borne on the labels, were false and mis-
H. leading and the product was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the pur-
; chaser, because the Vatements implied that the product was pine oil disin-
Sfeatant and would disinfect when diluted as directed, whereas the product was
Dot pine oil disinfectant and it could not be relied upon as a disinfectant when
used as directed.
.'., On November 21, 1945, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemna-
.i tion and forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
i. 1961. Misbranding of "A-1 Pino Disinfeetant." U. S. v. Harold D. Arnold, trad-
Iu.ing as Sanitary Chemical Laboratories. Plea of nolo eontendere. Fine
| $50. (I. & F. No. 2389. I.D. No. 10907.)
SExamination of a sample of "A-1 Pino Disinfectant" showed that this prod-
It. uct contained approximately 79 percent of water and its label did not bear the
Required ingredient statement.
On August 27, 1945, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against Harold D. Arnold, trading as Sanitary Chemical
i.. Laboratories, alleging shipment in interstate commerce, on or about April 24,
I 1945, from Beaumont, Tex., into the State of Louisiana, of a quantity of "A-1
I Pino Disinfectant" which was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of
;'" the Insecticide Act of 1910.
.... The product was alleged to be misbranded because it consisted partially of an
inert substance, namely, water, and the name and percentage amount were not
Stated plainly and correctly on the label, nor in lieu thereof were the name and
percentage amount of each and every substance or ingredient of the product
.,having fungicidal properties and the total percentage of the inert substances
I' present therein stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On August 27, 1945, a plea of nolo contender was entered and a fine of $50
I was imposed.
1962. Misbranding of "Mortolin W Improved." U. S. v. Associated Chemists,
1 Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine $100 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2380. I. D. No. 5548.)
.: Analysis of a sample'of "Mortolin W Improved" showed that this product con-
S- listed of 6.32 percent of magnesium Silicofluoride, 93.3 percent of water, and a
S........... .mall amount of wetting agent. The label failed to bear the required ingredient,
: statement.
['. On December 19, 1945, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
I** .Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
;....: triet. court an information against the Associated Chemists, Inc., Chicago, Ill.,
I;.: aleiner shipment in interstate commerce, on or about June 2. 1944. from Chi-






642


ICIDE ACT


[N. J., I. F.


1963. Adulteration and misbranding of "Miracle Roach and Water Bug Killer"
and misbranding of "Miraelenseeticide." IT. S. v. Joseph Manifleaum,
doing business under the style and trMae name of United Chemical Com-
pany. Plea of nolo contendere. Fne $50. (I. & F. No. 2381. I. D. Nos.
8148, 8149.)
Examination of a sample of "Mirafle Roach and Water Bug Killer" showed
that this product consisted of 49.1 percent of boric acid and a starchy material.
Examination of a sample of '"Miiele Insecticide" showed that this product
consisted of light mineral oil containing yellow coloring and a slight amount of
perfume.
On June 16, 1945, the United State attorney for the Eastern District of Loui-
siana, acting upon a report by the Seeretary of Agriculture, filed an information
in the district court against Josepi Mandlebamn, doing business under the
style and trade'name of United Cheaical Company, alleging shipment in inter-
state commerce, on or about July 6, 1944, from New Orleans, La., to Picayune,
Miss., of a quantity of "Miracle Boach and Waterbug Killer," which was an
adulterated and misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide
Act of 1910. The information alleged also that, on or abovt July 6, 1944, Joseph
Mandlebaum, doing business under the style and trade name of United Chemi-
cal Company, shipped in interstate commerce from New Orleans, La., to Picayune,
Mkiss., a quantity of "Miracle Insecticide" which was a misbranded insecticide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The "Miracle Roach and Waterbug Killer" was alleged to be adulterated be- ....
cause its strength or purity fell beldw the professed standard or quality under
which it was sold, as the product was labeled "Inert Ingredients 46 percent, Ac-
tive ingredients 54 percent," whereas it contained less than 54 percent active in-
gredients and more than 46 percent inert ingredients.
The "Miracle Roach and Waterbug Killer" was alleged to be misbranded be-
cause the labels affixed to the containers of the product bore the statements
"Miracle Roach and Waterbug Killer Inert Ingredients 46% Active Ingredients
54%," whereas the product contained less than 54 percent of active ingredients
and more than 46 percent of inert ingredients.
The product was alleged to be further misbranded in that the statements
"non poison" and "Cont 4 oz.," borne on the labels affixed to the containers
containing the product, were false ad misleading and served to deceive and mis-
lead the purchaser, because the prodwet was not nonpoisonous and the net contents
were less than 4 ounces.
The product was alleged to be asill further misbranded in that it consisted
partially of inert substances (substances other than boric acid), which did not
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate bsects, and the name and percentage amount
of each and every one of such ingredients were not stated on the label, nor did
the label bear a statement of the ame and percentage amount of the ingredient
having insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of inert ingredients.
The "Miracle Insecticide" was alleged to be misbranded in that the state-
menrts,


Kills


Mosquitoes,


Roaches


When Miracle

Use :
To K U
Close all windows, and spray Miu


"Mi cle Insecticide
* Chicken


Etc.
ills 'Em,
Direction
Any Spr
osquitoes
ele freely


pn nnsgiblp


* Flies


* *


They Stay Dead!
s
*ay Gun
and Flies
into the air, and directly on insects


Lice






*fl~A4fl'Y~1
CflEh**XnS*U*
4


NOTICES


OFi JUDGMENT


643


flBj&d Adulteration and misbranding of -"D. D. T. Liquid Spray." U7. S. v. Melvin
': .i.. M Guggenhelm, doing business under the style and trade name of Paint
.:. Speelalties Sales Company. Plea of guilty. Fine $200 and costs. (1. &
t. F No. 2414. L D. No. 11937.) -'


SAnalysis of a sample
.contained mineral oil, 1
. chloro diphenyl trichlo
SOn September 4, 1946,
. Io illinois, acting upon
..istrict court an inform


of "D. D. T. Liquid Spra
.51 percent of 'organic th
roethane.


the United
a report by
nation again


I doingg business under the style anc
,: .pany, alleging shipment in inters
S 3, 1945, from Chicago, Ill., to Racin
. Spray" which was an adulterated
a, ng of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
... :. In count one the product was all
::....prity fell below the professed sta
l!i:the labels affixed to the container
hip 'This product contains 3% D. D. T.-
I!' less than '3 percent dichloro diphe


States attorn
the Secretary
st Melvin M.
rade name of
te commerce,
Wis., of a q


y" showed that this product
iocyanates, and 0.70 percent

ey for the Northern District
Sof Agriculture, filed in the
Guggenheim, an individual,
Paint Specialties Sales Com-
on or about September 20,
quantity of "D. D. T. Liquid


and misbranded insecticide within the mean-
eged, to be adulterated in that its strength or
ndard or quality under which it was sold, as
:s in which the product was packed stated:


-2% Thanite,"
nyl triclloroeth


whereas the product contained
ane (D. D. T.) and less tlian


,." 2 percent Thanite (organic thiocyanates).
, In count two the product was alleged to be misbranded in that the labels nffixed
..'-. the bottles containing the product stated in part: (1) "D. D. T. Liquid Spray,"


.: (2) "This product contains 3% D. D.
.i.. Spray Kills Mosquitoes-F
S:Flies and Mosquitoes: Spray in air
pStatements were false and misleading
mpurchasers in that (1) the product
i diphenyl trichloroethane (D. D. T.),(
I' diehloro diphenyl trichloroethane (I
p organic thiucyanates), and (3) the
III fl: flies and mosquitoes, nor all in
II -"D. D. T. Liquid Spray Kills *
!IU 'te".'
i.. On September 30,1946, a plea of gu
w ere Impose d.


T.-2% Thanite," and (3) "D D. T. Liquid
lies Etc. Directions for
and on walls or places of breedingg" which
and would serve to deceive and mislead the
contained only a small amount of dirhloro
2) the product contained less than 3 percent
). D. T.) and less than 2 percent "lhalite
product, when used as directed, would not
sects that might be included in the claim
* Mosquitoes Flies *

ilty was entered and a fine of $200 and costs


. ,, ,, ..
..1065. Adulteration and misbranding of "HI-Tox 20." U. S. v. Associated Ch em-
I"..' lsts, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine $150 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2390. 1. D.
:.*"i.:.j No. 10312.)
An examination of "Ti-Tox 20" showed that this product consisted of mineral
1'..^..ldf the nature of deodorized kerosene, a chlorinated compound, coloring matter,
I"and. a very small amount of nitrogenous material. The product was represented
7...'implication as possessing a strength comparable to a 20--1 concentrated fly
I. B~ bpay,'whereas tests on one of the undiluted samples against bred flies in the Peet-
iA., Qrady chamber gave an average knockdown of 14 percent and a kill of 4 percent,
t sd' comparative tests with the Official Test Insecticide gave an average knock-
g&i:r|rb.won of 97 percent and a kill of 65 percent. Similar tests on samples of the
|iH *. *duct at a dilution of 1 part to 19 parts 6f deodorized kerosene gave average
. .ijekdowns of 19 percent and 22 percent and kills of 7 percent and 8 percent,
.iaeb-tively. Comparative tests with the Official Test Insecticide gave an average
neekdown of 95 percent, and a kill of 0O percent.
I. H On January 18, 1946, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
t.|1bits, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in tlhe district
at an information against the Associated Chemists. Inc.. alleging shipment in





Slibel praying .seizure and condemnation of 3,452 quart and
containers of "Sun-X Sterilizer Bleach" at Ottumnwa, Iowa
product had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about
from Springfield, Ill., and charging that the product was
adulterated fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide
shipment was made by the C. G. Whitlock Company.


318 one-half gallon
, alleging that the
September 1945
a misbranded and
Act of 1910. The


The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength or purity fell
below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold since it was
labeled "Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25%, Inert Ingredients 94.75% By Weight,"
whereas it contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite and more than
94.75 percent of inert ingredients.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, '"Sodium
Hypochlorite 5.25%, Inert Ingredie4nts 94.75% By Weight," borne on the labels
affixed to containers of the product, were false and misleading and tended to
deceive and mislead the purchase, since the product contained less than 5.25
percent sodium hypochlorite and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients.
The product was alleged to be further misbranded in that the statement,
"Sun-X Sterilizer Bleach available chlorine solution of 200 parts per
million is prepared by adding 1 ounce of Sun-X to 2 gallons of water," borne
on the labels affixed to the containers in which the product was packed, was false
and misleading, and served to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the
statement purported and represented that the product was a sterilizer which
provided a solution containing 20 parts per million available chlorine when 1
ounce of the product was diluted vith 2 gallons of water and which could be
relied upon to disinfect when so diluted, whereas the product was not a sterilizer,
did not provide a solution containing 200 parts per million of available chlorine
when diluted as directed, and would not disinfect when diluted as directed.
On January 3, 1946, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation-
and forfeiture was entered, and itwas ordered that the product be destroyed.
1M7. Misbranding of "Spraymaster Aerosol Inseetielde Dispensers." U. S. v. 64
"Spraymaster Aerosol Insietclde Dispensers." Decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2417. I. D. No. 13307.)


An examination of "Spraymasr Aerosol Insecticide Dis
this product consisted of a prop ant of the nature of Fre
tract, DDT, water, and probab an aromatic petroleum
On August 2, 1946, the Unite States attorney for the
Illinois, acting upon a report by e Secretary of Agricultur
court a libel praying seizure condemnation of 64 "'


pensers" showed that
in 12, pyrethrins ex-


3

e
S


derivative solvent.
northern District of
, filed in the district
praymaster Aerosol


A A


(44 ImN8mnECTCDE ACTT J. Lt

The product was alleged to be nhlSbranded in that the label statement quoted
above was false andl misleading So to decetve and mislead the purchaser in.
that the statement purported and rjresented . possessed a strength comparable to a 20-1 concentrated fly spray, whereas the
product did not possess such a streng .
On January 28, 1946, a plea of guilty was entered, and the court imposed a fine-
of $150 and costs,
1966. Adulteration and dmisbranding of Sun.-X Sterilizer Bleach." U. S.v. 3v5
quart. and 18 one-half galon containers, more or less, of "Sun-X
Sterilizer Bleach." Deeree qf condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
(I. & F. No. 2396. LI D). No. 12 ) 8..
An analysis of "Sun-X Sterilizer Bleach" showed that this product contained
40.57 percent less sodium hypochlorite than was stated on the lab
On Nov. 8, 1945, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Iowa,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court






ii.
S45
p+ yr9.'0--1975] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 645
!x
.master-1. Remove tape from valve. 2. Hold dispenser upright with arrow point-
;*.** ing. Sway from you. 3. Turn valve down to start spray and up to stop. DO
1.k pT OPEN BEYOND 4 to % TURN. 4. Release insecticide into the air. Keep
spray at least one foot away from objects. 5. Spray average room 4 to 6 sec-
| pnds. Use sparingly. 7. Avoid direct contact with woodwork
pr: Jlothing Effective Against Flies. Mosquitoes. Ants. Moths. Guats.
Wasps. Silverfish Spraymaster Contains Sufficient Aerosol Insecticidle to Spray
100 Average Size Rooms." "Manufactured to conform with prescribed formula-
t ions of Ddpt. of Agriculture, under U. S. Patents Nos. 2321023 and Re Pat. No.
27Op0. Others Pending," which statements purported and represented (1) that
*: said product formed an aerosol which expanded into a fine mist when the bomb
Sor-dispenser was operated as directed and which would control flies, mosquitoes,
ants, moths, gnats, wasps, and silverfish, if used as directed, and (2) that the
: bomb or dispenser was manufactured to conform with prescribed formulations
.of the U. S. Department of Agriculture under U. S. Patents No. 2321023 and
;;. Re Pat. No. 22700, with other patents pending, whereas the said product did not
,, form an aerosol, did not expand into a fine mist when the bomb was operated
: nas directed, and the product did not control flies, mosquitoes, ants, moths, gnnts,
ii wasps, and silverfish, if used as directed; and the product did not conform with
S the formulations designated.
I :, The product was further misbranded within the meaning of the Insecticide
i ,Act of 1910 in that said product consisted partially of inert substances (dichloro
I 0.gifluoro methane and water), which did not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
Insects, and the names and percentage amounts of each and every one of such
1= inert ingredients were not stated on the labels affixed to the containers in which
I:. the product was packed, nor did said labels bear a statement of the names and
i: percentage amounts of each and every ingredient having insecticidal properties
i. and the total percentage of inert ingredients.
On October 15, 1946, no claimant having appeared, default decree of condemna-
It lion, forfeiture, and destruction was entered and the United States marshal was
ordered to destroy the product.

S19608. Adulteration and misbranding of "AII-Nu Pine Petroleum Disinfectant."
I:. U. S. v. All-Ni. Products Co., a corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine $600.
(I. & F. No. 2393. I. D. No. 9543.)
i. ..An examination of "All-Nu Pine Petroleum Disinfectant" showed that this
product consisted of pine oil, mineral oil, soap, and water, and it was found to
Spossess a phenol coefficient of 1.1.
.' On January 24, 1946, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,
p .a-ting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
P: an information against All-Nu Products"Co., a corporation, alleging shipment in
-. interstate commerce, on or about February 7, 1945, from Camden, N. J., to
1I toanoke, Va., of a quantity of "AllI-Nu Pine Petroleum Disinfectant" which was
an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide


Actof
-. The
tmed
.t. the


1910.
product was adulterated in that its strength or purity fell below the pro-
standard or quality under which it was sold because the labels affixed
bottles containing the product stated in part, "All-Nu Pine Disinfectant


|r J,, D. A. Coef. 2," whereas the product did not possess a phenol coefficient of 2.
H T The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "All-Nu Pine
n1ii Stfroebm Disinfectant is ideal for use in public places as well as the home. For
"*: ,iteiudeeting of bathtubs, shower stalls, basins, or toilets in schools,
!;e'^iSg, theatres, stores, factories, office buildings, bath houses or locker
.e as. Directions Spray or mop freely, using a solution of one (1)
lIljfltto forty (40) arts of water. F. D. A. Coeffilcient 2." horne on the






~646


IN rflaDE ACT


1969. Adulteration and mtsbrandlft of "Butcher Brand Free Nicotine Dust No.
10, U. S. v. 18 flve-poundi packages and 66 one-pound packages of
"Buteher Brand Free Nicotine Dust No. 10." Default decree of con-
demnation and forfeiture. Produet orderedd destroyed. (I. & F. No. 2378.
I. D. No 10542.)
Analysis of a sample of "Butche Brand Wtee Nicotine Dust No. 10" showed
that the product consisted of nicotine alkaloid, siliceous materials, and a small
amount of iron, aluminum, copper, calcium, and sulphate compounds. The prod-
euct was found to contain an average of 1.7 percent of nicotine alkaloid. -
On March 9, 1945, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
a libel, praying seizure and condemnation of 18 five-pound packages and 66 one-
pound packages of "Butcher Brand Free Nicotine Dust No. 10" at Phoenix, Ariz.,
alleging that the product had beep shipped in interstate commerce on or about
March 23, 1944, from Los AngeleCalif., by the I. H. Butcher Company, and
charging that the product was an aIulterated and misbranded insecticide within
the meaning of the Insecticide Act $ 1910.
The product was alleged to be adulterated, in that its strength or purity fell
below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold in that the state-
inents, "Active Ingredient: Nicotine Alkaloid 3.60, Inert Ingredients 96.40," borne
on the labels affixed to the packages containing the product, purported that the
standard or quality of the product was such that it had a nicotine alkaloid content
of not less than 3.60 percent and that the inert ingredients were not in excess tOf
z96.40 percent, whereas the products strength or purity fell below the professed
standard or quality under which the product was sold as it contained less than
3.60 percent nicotine, and more than 96.40 percent inert ingredients.
The product was alleged to be mibranded in that the statements, (1) "Active
Ingredient: Nicotine Alkaloid 3.60, Inert Ingredients 96.40" and (2) "Butcher
Brand Free Nicotine Dust No. 10 Kills or controls White
Flies and Similar Insects. Apply with a hand duster when insects are
* present on plants and when air is quiet, preferably in early morning," borne on
the labels affixed to the packages containing the product, were false and mis-
leading and the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead
the purchaser because the statements purported and represented (1) that the
product contained not less than 860 percent nicotine, and not more thsn 96.40
percent inert ingredients and (2) that the product, when used as directed,
would control white flies and all similar insects, whereas the product contained
less than 3.60 percent nicotine, and more than 96.40 percent inert ingredients,
and when used as directed would pot control white flies and all similar insects.
On September 26, 1945, no clabant having appeared, judgment of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
1970. Adulteration and misbranting of "DeWitt Liquor Cresolls Saponataum."
IU. S. v. The Zep Manufuatring Co., a corporation, dolng business as the
DeWitt Supply Co. Plea of nolo contender. Fine $200. (I. & F. 2334.
I. D. No. 7310.) "
Analysis of a sample of "DeWt Liquor Cresolis Saponatus" showed that this
product consisted of water, 2 percent; sodium oxide, 1.7 percent; fatty
anhydride, 24.1 percent; glycerij 1.0 percent; and tar acids, 50.5 percent The
tar acids distilled mainly above 50 C. and were not cresol.
On August 1, 1945, the Uni States attorney for the Northern -
Georgia, acting upon a report py the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information agfist The Zep Manufacturing Ce.; if
doirg business as the DeWitt Sfpply Co., alleging shipment in interstate corn-
nirtTna nn-t ^kw ahnn+fr Mnnhavn I flS e1nwn &tr^K lsartfo fln ?nt-n t-ha QAtnt^o nf-A^nhtmflr






*5099751


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


647


9
t deceive and mislead the purchaser because the
S:. percent water, and further the product was not
Stcontained an excess of water and phenols other t1
OB October 1, 1945, a plea of nolo contender
S3.was imposed.


product contained more than
Liquor Cresolis Saponatus as
han cresols.
was entered and a fine of


19ZL1 Adulteration and misbranding of "Bartender Pine Disinfectant."
^ U-San-0 Corporation. Plea of nolo contender. fine $100.
2412. I.-D. No. 12159.)


U. S. v.
(I. & F.


'A.n examination of "Bartender Pine Disinfectant" showed that this product
consisted of soap, pine oil, isopropyl alcohol, a small amount of phenolic bodies,
and 73 percent of water.
;On August 26, 1946, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of


SMiBsouri, acting upon
dipgtrict court an inform
. in .Interstate commerce,
East St. Louis, Ill., of
was an adulterated and
eide Act of 1910.


. The product was alleged
: fell below the professed stan
IJ: labeled "Inert material not
thrlan 15 percent water.
iii" The product was alleged
materiall not to exceed 1551
V containing the product, wa'
I, mislead the purchaser, sin
water.
-On September 16, 1946, a
I O00 was imposed.


a report by the Secretary of Agricul
action against the U-San-O Corporation,
Son or about December 6, 1945, from
a quantity of "Bartender Pine Oil Di
misbranded fungicide within the mean


ture, filed in the
alleging shipment
St. Louis, Mo., to
sinfectant" which
ing of the Insecti-


to be adulterated in that its strength or purity
dard of quality under which it was sold, since it was
to exceed 15% Water," whereas it contained more-

to be misbranded in that the statement "Inert
o Water," borne on the labels affixed to the jugs
s false and misleading and served to deceive and
ice the product contained more than 15 percent

plea of nolo contender was entered and a fine of


nfl. Milbranding of "Ward's Garden Club Powdered Tobacco Dust."
S- Richard W. Leonard, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine $50 and cosmts.
.. No. 2354. I. D. Noe. 5942, 9318.)


U. S. v.
(I. & F:


I An examination showed that the average net content of the bags of "Ward's
1 (-arden Club Powdered Tobacco Dust" was 4.71 pounds, a shortage of 5.8 percent
H. of.the amount claimed on the labels.
i "-On February 15, 1946, the United States attorney for the Northern District of
I Ilinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
pliurt an information against Richard W. Leonard, Inc., alleging shipments in
b!rstate commerce, on or about September 17, 1942, and September 14, 1943,.
jq..'0fl Chicago, Ill., into the State of Minnesota, of quantities of "Ward's Garden
toi.p!ib Powdered Tobacco Dust" which was a misbranded insecticide within the
V|janing of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
-.Whe product *as alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "Net Weight
4itIs.," borne on the labels affixed to the bags containing the product, was false
H.. .'i misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the bags
ifEtained less than 5 pounds.
||On February 15, 1946, a plea of guilty was entered, and a fine of $50 and costs
Be-imposed. -


:~~iNHhiH
HHS.:H.
HI*i.


. Adulteration and misbranding of "Sanu Pine." U. S. v. Sani-Pne Corpora-
..tion. Plea. of guilty. Fine $100 on each of counts one and two; county
three and four dismissed. (I. & F. No. 2385. I. D. Nos. 9708, 9713, 9714.)


&ntlyses of samples of "Sani Pine" showed that the product consisted of soap,






648 INS^JICIDf ACT [N. ., I F.

under which it was sold, as the product was labeled (1) "Inert water (10%)"
and (2) "Sani Pine Disitfectait Sani Pine has
a guaranteed bacteriological potency of 3.5 times that of phenol when tested by
methods of U. S. Public Health Servie or bY F. D. A. method of U. S. Department
of Agriculture," whereas the product containedd more than 10 percent water, and
had a phenol coefficient of less than 3.5. F
In count two the product was alleged to be misbranded because the statements,
(1) "Inert Water (10%)", (2) "SaniPine Diinfectant Sani
Pine has a guaranteed bacteriological potency of 3.5 times that of phenol,
when tested by methods of U. S. Public Health Service or by F. D. A. method of
U. S. Department of Agriculture To disipifect dratins *," (3) Sani
Pine For household pests Full Strength (Undiluted)," and (4) "Sani
Pine in dilutions indicated is the modern protection against harmful germs,"
borne on the labels affixed to the wrappers and bottles containing the product,
were false and misleading and served to deceive and mislead the purchaser be-
cause the statements purported and represented (1) that the product contained
not more than 10 percent water, (2) that the product had a phenol coefficient of
not less than 3.5 and would disinfect drains, (3) that the product would control
all household pests, and (4) that the product was a protection against all harm-
ful germs, whereas the product contained more than 10 percent water, had a
phenol coefficient of less than 3.5, would not disinfect drains, would not control
all household pests, and was not a protection against all harmful germs.
In count three the product, shipped on September 21, 1944, was alleged to be
adulterated in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or
quality under which it was sold, as the product was labeled (1) "Inert water
(10%)" and (2) "Sani Pine Disinfectant Sani Pine *
has a guaranteed bacteriological potency of 3.5 times that of phenol when tested by
methods of U. S. Public Health Service or by F. D. A. method of U. S. Department
of Agriculture," whereas the product contained more than 10 percent water, and
had a phenol coefficient of less than 3.5.
In count four the product, shipped on September 21, 1944, was alleged to be
misbranded because the statements, (1) "Inert Water (10%)" and (2) "Sani Pine
* Disinfectant Sani Pine has a guaranteed bacteriological potency
of 3.5 times that of phenol, when tested by methods of U. S. Public Health ..ervtgL
or by F. D. A. method of U. S. Department of Agriculture," borne on the wrap-
pers and on the labels affixed to the bottles containing the product, were false
and misleading and served to deceive and mislead the purchaser as the prod-
cnet contained more than 10 percent water and had a phenol coeffiesno s
than 3.5.
The product was alleged to be further misbranded because the statements,
(1) "Sani Pine in dilutions indicated is the modern protection against harmful
germs," (2) "To disinfect drains," and (3) "For household pests Full Strength
(Undiluted)," borne on the wrappers and on the labels affixed to the pint bottles


containing the product, were false and misleading
lead the purchaser because the product was not
ful germs, would not disinfect drains, and would
The defendant filed a demurrer, alleging (1) t1
information did not constitute a crine and (2) t1
tive in that it did. not allege that ihe defendant
mitted the offenses charged. The demurrer was
and on October 24, 1945, the demurrer was over
guilty was entered, and on Noveigber 8, 1945, a
each of counts one and two: counts three and four


and served to deceive and mi1-
a protection against all harm-
not control all household pests.
iat the offenses charged in the
ihat the information was defec-
willfully and unlawfully corn-
answered on October 17, 1945,


ruled by the court.


A plea of


fine of $100 was imposed on
were dismissed.






150--1975 ]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


649


SIt September 1944,


United


States attorney for the Northern


. UIti'ois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
tion in the district court against Leroy C. Glessner, doing bi
style and trade name of Glessner Brothers, alleging shipment
merce, on or about June 30, 1943, from Eldena, Ill., to Terre
quantity of "Glessner's G--B Fly and Household Spray" which
insecticide.within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
alleged also that, on or about August 11, 1943, Leroy C. Glessn
under the style and trade name of Glessner Brothers, shipped
pierce from Eldena, Ill., to Janesville, Wis., a quantity of "
Household Spray" which was an adulterated and misbranded
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The "G-B Fly and Household Spray" was alleged to be mi
the statements, "Glessner's G-B Fly and Household Spray *


District of


filed an informa-
isiness under the
in interstate com-
Haute, Ind., of a
was a misbranded
The information
er, doing business
in interstate com-
P. O. P. Fly and
insecticide within


stranded because
* *


Directions


For Flies. -
Close doors and windows, directing spray upward t
room should be filled with mist, and remain closed fo
Sweep up dead and stupefied insects and destroy the
For Roaches, Waterbugs -
Spray liberally with force around refrigerators,
around pantry shelves, into all cracks and crevices
work, pipe openings in walls and floors.
Repeat treatment as often as necessary.
Kills Flies, Roaches, Water
used as directed,"


toward the ceiling. The
>r ten or twenty minutes.
m.

sinks, all cabinets, and
Sin moulding and wood-


Bugs,


* when


borne on the
misleading ai
when used as
Swaterbugs.
The "P. O. ]
the labels affi
*Pine Oil Pyr<
professed sta
Other substan
SThe produce
Pine Oil Pyre
statement pu
whereas the p
The produce


labels affixed to the bottles containing the product, were false and
nd tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, as the product,
directed, would not be effective in controlling flies, roaches, and

P. Fly and Household Spray" was alleged to be adulterated because
xed to the bottles containing the product bore the statement "P. O. P.
ethrum," whereas the product's strength or purity fell below the
ndard or quality under which the product was offered for sale as
ces had been substituted for pyrethrum.
t was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "P. O. P.
'thrum," borne on the labels, was false and misleading because the
reported and represented that the product contained pyrethrum,
product did not contain pyrethrum.
et was alleged to be further misbranded in that the statements,


"P. O. P. Fly and Household Spray
Directions
For Flies, *


* *


Close doors and windows, directing spray upward toward the ceiling. The
room should be filled with mist, and remain closed for ten or twenty minutes.
Sweep up dead and stupefied insects and destroy them.


For B
Spray
around
work,
Sary.
'whtan


coaches,
Slibera


lly


* *
* with


Waterbugs


force


around


* *


refrigerators,


sinks,


all cabinets,


d pantry shelves, into all cracks and crevices in moulding and wood-
pipe openings in walls and floors. Repeat treatment as often as neces-
Kills Flies, Roaches, Water Bugs, *
11Qcc i/l'h~ontovir "*







650


INSECTICIDE


ACT


1975. Adulteration and misbranding of "lieecy White Laundry Bleach." .
2,OOS quart containers and 902 one-half gallon containers, more
of "Fleecy White Laundry Bleach." Decree of condemnation, fol
and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2401. I. D. No. 12812.)


Examination of samples of
podluct was a sodium hyp
s odium hypochlorite.


Abril


1946.


Michigan, acting upon
dstriet court a libel p
taitners and 902 one-half
at Grand Rapids, Mich.,


a
r


"Fleecy White Laundry


)chlorite


United
report
saying s


States
by the
seizure


solution


attorney


Secretary


Bleach" showed'that thii..
contained 4.24 percent o,
A.


for the Western


District


of Agriculture, filed


condremnat


gallon containers of "Fleecy


i1


ion of 2,008 quart
White Laundry BIEl


ai thep
con-
geh,"


alleging that the product had been shipped in intqrstate-


commerce, on or about March 7, 1946, from Chicago, Ill.
product wa: an adulterated and misbranded fungicide
the Insecticide Act of 1910. The shipment was made by


Company.


, and charging tltt the
within the meaning ot
the John PuhlProfducts


The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength or purityfell
below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold since it. as
labeled "Active Ingredients: Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% By Weight ieist:.In-
gredients 94.75% By Weight," whereas it contained less than 5.25 percent ,nokum
hypochlorite by weight and moretd 94.75 percent inert ingredients by -wight
The product was alleged to be i1sbranded in that the statements, "Activ
Tngredents Soditim ypochlorite 5.25% By Weight Inert Ingredients 9W7%
By Weight," borne on the labels affixed to containers of the product, were :1v.
and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser since the trod-


net contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite by weight a
than 94.75 present inert ingredients by weight.
On April 1S, 1946, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemn
forfeiture was entered, and It wa ordered that the product be e5


INDEX TO NOTOlES OF


3d more


JUDGMENT 1950-1975


N. J.7'Io.


All-NU Pine Petroleum Disinfectant:
AUANu Products Co- .........-----
A-1 Pino Disinfectant:
Harot D. Arnold .........--
Sanitary Chemical Laboratories_
Banner American Beauty Pine Oil


Disinfectant
Banner Chemical Products Co--


Bartender Pine Disinfectant:
T-San-O Corporation --
Bartender Pine Disinfectant


UuSan-O
Butcher Bran
No. 10 :
L. H.Bu
D. D. T. IAquif
Melvin M
Paint Si


. -


Corporation... ..,--
d Free Nicotine Dust
tcher Company .......
1d Spray :
G. uggenbeim-------
pecialties Sales Cornm-


pany -. ------------------
pa~ .. ... ..
DeWitt Liquor Cresolis Saponatus:
The Zep Manufacturing Co .---.


DeWitt
E Z Bleach :


Supply


---- --- ------


Central City Pickle Company___
Fleecy White Laundry Bleach:
John Puhi Products Company__


Germitex:


a -


S *..-.nnnfl .. U as~ nfl. *nnnn rnn


1968
1961
1961

1960
1956
1971

1969
1964
1964
1970
1970
1958
1975
10o~1


Insectilyn DDT 5%-Continued.
Arthur M. Hartman._.__.._.....
Lynwood Products Company..--
Kitchen Klenzer:
Midland Warehouse, Inc__.. _


Miracle Roach and Water Bug Kill
and Miracle Insecticide:
Joseph Mandlebaum........._
United Chemical Company_.___


Mort


olin W Improved:
Associated Chemists. Ine......


Old Nick's Seed Treatment:
Old Nick Seed Treatment Con


pany -....-----.....
Pine Oil Disinfectant:


Maurice
Benmar


- ---llll -


Kerucs ...-....
Products_________---


Pine OU Disinfects.nt:
Benmar Products.


-ll l- l -- -l


Pine: ,
Sanul-Pine Corporation_--_


Spraymaster
Densers:


Spra


Aerosol Insecticide Dil


lBwfr


hit

o lOSt fl*
ions
H.:
**ii
- 1*6*
1- t .1
-
'*1~
I
.
fl~H
.1~
V,.
i..
*;ii*Hii
L.A I'
- ifls
K- -


The Spraymaster Corporation-..
ymaster Aerosol Insecticide Dis-


nensers:


Tho amnrnvmnatr Pnrnnratlnn-_


On


V.

1.3.; tR4:~
A...: jII
U~ S.
flumes...
:1
rKe1t~.% .. H


c(


m


w


m


-- -