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:
AA00008549:00048

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text

N. J., I. F. 1976-2015


Issued May 1948


UNITED STATES DEPART
PRODUCTION AND MAKK3


TOF


tING ADMINISTRATION


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


1976-2015


The notices of judgment herewith relate to cases instituted in the United
States district courts and are approved for publication, as provided in section 4
of the Insecticide Act of 1910 (36 Stat. 33J).
LIONEL C. HOLM,
Acting Administrator,
;Production and Marketing Administration.


WASHINGTON, D. G., April 1, 1948.


1976. Adulteration and misbranding of "Hi-Tox-20." U. S. v. 25 five-gallon
cans, more or less, of "Hi-Tox-20." Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2382. I. D. No. 10649.) .
An analysis of "Hi-Tox-20" showed that the product consisted of mineral oil
containing an organic chloride similar to orthodichlorobenzene, and coloring
matter. An undiluted sample of the product, tested against bred flies in the
Peet-Grady chamber, gave an average knock-down of 11 percent and a kill of
1 percent. Comparative tests with the official test insecticide gave an average
kiock-down of 92 percent and a kill of 56 percent.
On May 3, 1945, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 25 five-gallon cans,
more or less, of "Hi-Tox-20" at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the product
had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 1, 1944, by the Asso-
ciated Chemists, Inc., from Chicago, Ill., and charging that the product was an
adulterated and misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide
Act of 1910. .
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement, "Hi-Tox-20 in
Odorless Base," borne dn the containers of the product, purported and represented
that the product's standard of quality was such that it had a strength comparable


to a 20-1 conce
below such stai
to a 20-1 conce
The product
Tox-20 in ordo
niislead the pu
thft the produce
while the prodi
On May 28,
and forfeiture


ntrated fly spray, while the strength or purity of the product fell
adard or quality, because it did not possess a strength comparable
ntrated fly spray.
was alleged to be misbranded because the label statement, "Hi-
rless base," was false and misleading and tended to deceive and
rchaser. The statement purported and represented by implication
t possessed a strength comparable to a 20-1 concentrated fly spray,
uct did not possess such strength.
1945, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
was entered, and the product was ordered to be destroyed.


3;


---C


AGRICULTURE


-


k








652


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


It was alleged that the product was adulterated in that its strength or purity
fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold, since it
was labeled (quart size) "Active Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by
Wt. Inert Ingredients 94.75%" (half-gallon size) "Active Ingredient Sodium
Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt. Inert Ingredients 94.75 by Wt.," while it contained
less than 5.25 percent of sodium hypochlorite and more than 94.T5 percent inert
ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements (quart
size) "Active Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt. Inert Ingredients
94.75%" (half-gallon size) "Active Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by
Wt. Inert Ingredients 94.75% by Wt.," borne on the labels, were false and mis-
leading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since it contained less
than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite and more than 94.75 percent inert
ingredients.
On March 10, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
1978. Adulteration and misbranding of "Sun-X Sterilizer Bleach." I. S. v. 1,195
quart containers and 299 one-half gallon containers, more or less, of
"Sun-X Sterilizer Bleach." Decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and de-
struction. (I. & F. No. 2405. I. D. No. 12853.)
Examination of samples of "Sun-X Sterilizer Bleach" showed that it was a


sodium hypochlorite
than stated on the 1
On June 14, 1946,
Iowa, acting upon a
court a libel prayin
299 one-half gallon


solution and contained 20 percent less sodium hypochlorite
abel.
it -- *, .. g^ j it a- j -w .i a


ht e United


report by the
g seizure and
containers of


Iowa, alleging that the product ha
about January 31, 1946, from Sprin
an adulterated and misbranded fu:


states Attorney ror mte Nortnern ulistrict o
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
condemnation of 1,195 quart containers and
"Sun-X Sterilizer Bleach," at Cedar Rapids,
d been shipped in interstate commerce, on or
field, Ill., and charging that the product was
ngicide within the meaning of the Insecticide


Act of 1910. The shipment was made by the Whitlock Chemical Co.
It was alleged that the product was 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,"
while it contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite and more than
94.75 percent inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements, "Sodium
Hypochlorite 5.25%. Inert Ingredients 94.75% by Weight," borne on the labels,
were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since
the product contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite and more than
94.75 percent inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that the statement,
"Sun-X Sterilizer 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, was false and misleading, and served to deceive and
mislead the purchaser, since the statement purported and represented that the
product provided a solution containing 200 parts per million available chlorine
when 1 ounce of it was diluted with 2 gallons of water, and could be relied upon
to disinfect when diluted as directed, while the product 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 Jnlv 16. 1946. no claimant having anneared. a decree of condemnation and


I










1976-2015J


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT


653


It was alleged that the product was 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 Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt. Inert Ingre-
dients 9.4.75% by Wt.," while is contained less than 5.25 percent of sodium
hypochlorite and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements, "Active
Ingredients Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt. Inert Ingredients 94.75% by
Wt.," borne on the labels, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and
mislead the purchaser, since it contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypo-
chlorite and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that the state-
ments, "Nu-Way's Bleach Disinfects As a Dis-
infectant add 1 oz. Bleach for each 4 gallons cold water to prepare a disinfecting
solution 100 parts per million Available Chlorine," borne on the labels affixed to
containers in which the product was packed, were false and misleading and
tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the statements purported and
represented that the product when used as directed would give a disinfecting
solution of 100 parts per million available chlorine, while it would not give a dis-
infecting solution containing 100 parts per million available chlorine.
On October 29, 1946, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


1980. Adulteration and misbranding of "33 Bleach Disinfectant Cleanser." U. S.
v. 896 Quart Containers and 300 one-half Gallon Containers, more or less,
of "33 Bleach Disinfectant Cleanser." Default decree of condemnation
and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2430, I. D. No. 14259.)
An analysis of "33 Bleach Disinfectant Cleanser" showed that it contained
24.76 percent less sodium hypochlorite than was claimed on the label affixed to
the product.
On September 24, 1946, the United States attorney for the Western District of
Oklahoma, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
trict court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 896 quart containers and
300 one-half gallon containers, more or less, of "33 Bleach Disinfectant Cleanser"
at Oklahoma City, Okla., alleging that the product had been shipped in interstate
commerce on or about September 24, 1945, from Harrys, Tex., and charging that
the product was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the meaning
of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The shipment was made by the Beacon Chemical
Corp.
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, as the labels
affixed to the containers containing the product stated "Active Ingredient-
Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% By Weight-Inert Ingredients 94.75%," whereas
said product contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite by weight and
more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients. .
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that it contained less than 5.25
percent sodium hypochlorite by weight and more than 94.75 percent inert
ingredients.
On November 21, 1946, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was entered, and the United States marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.


1981. Adulteration and misbranding of 2,396 quarts of "Fleecy White Laundry
Bleach." Ut. S. v. 2,396 quart containers, more or less, of "Fleecy White
Laundry Bleach." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and de-








654


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. PF.


Inert Ingredien
sodium hypoch
by weight.
The product
percent sodium
gredients by we
On November
demnation and
be destroyed.


Lts 94.
lorite


75% by weight," whereas it contained less than 5.25 percent
by weight and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients


was alleged to be misbranded in that it contained less than 5.25
i hypochlorite by weight and more than 94.75 percent inert in-
ight.
r 6, 1946, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of con-
destruction was entered, and it was ordered that the product


1982. Adulteration and mi
quart containers,
cree of condemn
I. D. No. 13170.)
An examination of Luci
chlorite solution containing
On October 24, 1946, the
acting upon a report by th
libel praying seizure and c
"Lucky Dutchman Bleach,
in the District of Columbia


charging tha
the meaning
terated in th;
under which
product was


t the product
of the Insecti
at its strength
it was sold,
packed stated


sbranding of "Lucky Dutchman Bleach."
more or less, of Lucky Dutelpman Bleach.
tion, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. &


U. S. v. 930
Default de-
F. No. 2442.


ky Dutchman Bleach showed it to be a sodium hypo-
g approximately 4.22 percent sodium hypochlorite.
United States attorney for the District of Columbia,
e Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a
ondemnation of 930 quart containers, more or less, of
" alleging that the product had been offered for sale
i on or about October 10, 1946, by Mazo Bros., Inc., and
was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within
cide Act of 1910. The product was alleged to be adul-
Sor purity fell below the professed standard or quality
as the labels affixed to the containers in which the
in part:


"Active ingredients


Inert


ingredients --- -


sodium


hypochlorite


5%
95%


100%"
whereas, said product contained less than 5 percent sodium hypochlorite and
more than 95 percent inert ingredients.
Said product was alleged to be misbranded in that it did not contain 5 percent
sodium hypochlorite and did contain more than 95 percent inert ingredients.
On December 13, 1946, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of con-
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction was entered, and the United States marshal
was directed to turn said product over to St. Elizabeth's Hospital for its use.
1983. Adulteration and misbranding of "White Glo Bleach." JT. S. v. 5,988 quart
containers, more or less, of "White Glo Bleach." (I. & F. No. 2436. I. D.
No. 14112.)
An examination of "White Glo Bleach" disclosed it to be a sodium hypochlorite
solution containing approximately 4.08 percent sodium hypochlorite.
On October 11, 1946, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
Alabama, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court a libel praying, seizure and condemnation of 5,988 quart containers, more
or less, of "White Glo Bleach," alleging that the product had been shipped in inter-
state commerce on or about September 1, 1945, from Chicago, Ill., to Mobile, Ala.,
and charging that the product was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The shipment was made by
the Laundry Supply Co., Inc.
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength or purity fell
hailnur 1-'ha nrnfo~~cQra citinrlafrl n~r nnoim-Tr Tiindor -n/blobTi t- wn7a AfPoTrcb! -fnr ceo e> a








1.976-2015]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


655


when used as directed would give a solution containing 200 parts per million
available chlorine, or a solution strong enough to effectively disinfect, whereas
said product when used as directed would not give a solution containing 200 parts
per million of available chlorine and would not give a solution strong enough to
disinfect effectively.
On December 19, 1946, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of con-
demnation and forfeiture was entered, and the United States marshal was directed
to destroy the product.
1984. Adulteration and misbranding of "Zolox Bleach and Disinfectant." UI. S.
v. 2.948 quart containers and 522 one-half gallon containers, more or less,
of "Zolox Bleach and Disinfectant." Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2428. I. D. No. 14282.)
An examination of sample of "Zolox Bleach and Disinfectant" disclosed it to be
a sodium hypochlorite solution containing approximately 4.01 percent sodium
hypochlorite.
On September 20, 1946, the United States attorney for the Northern District
of Oklahoma, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 2,948
quart containers and 522 one-half gallon containers, more or less, of "Zolox
Bleach and Disinfectant," alleging that the product had been shipped in inter-
state commerce on or about October 4, 1945, from Denver, Colo., to Tulsa, Okla.,
and charging that the product was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The shipment was made by the


Excel Produ
The produ
below the pr
the statemei
dients 94.75S
was packed,
5.25 percent


cts Co.
[ct was alleged to be adulterated
ofessed standard or quality under
nts, "Active Ingredient-Sodium
%," borne on the label affixed to t]
purported and represented that t
of sodium hypochlorite and not m


in that its strength oi
which it was offered f(
Hypochlorite 5.25%. ]
he containers in which
he product contained n
lore than 94.75 percent


r purity fell
or sale since
[nert Ingre-
the product
ot less than
inert ingre-


dients, whereas the product did not contain 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite
and did contain more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients.
The product was also alleged to be misbranded, as it contained less than 5.25
percent active ingredients and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients.
On October 28, 1946, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of condem-
nation and forfeiture was entered, and the United States marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.


1985. Adulteration and misbranding of "Savaday
U. S. v. 439 quart containers, more or less, of
fectant," Default decree of condemnation,
(I. & F. No. 2423. I. D. No. 13484.)
An examination of "Savaday Bleach and Disinfe
sodium hypochlorite solution containing approxim
hypochlorite.
On August 31, 1946, the United States attorney f
Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary c
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnat


more or less,
the product h
from Chicago
terated and n
.4 4 /tr n-I...~ -


Bleach and Disinfectant,"
"Savaday Bleach and Disin-
forfeiture, and destruction.


etant"
Lately


disclosed it
4.42 percent


to be a
sodium


or the Northern District of
)f Agriculture, filed in the
ion of 439 quart containers,


of "Savaday Bleach and Disinfectant" at Gary, Ind., al
ad been shipped in interstate commerce on or about Ma
, Ill., to Gary, Ind., and charging that the product wa
isbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecti


leging that
Ly 31, 1946,
LS an adul-
cide Act of









656


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


1986. Adulteration and misbranding of "E Z Bleach." U.. S. v.
tainers and 438 one-half gallon containers, more or less,
Decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
I. D. No. 12056.)
Examination of samples of "E Z Bleach" showed that it was
chlorite solution and contained 19.43 percent less sodium hypochl
on the label.
On November 8, 1945, the United States attorney for the Sou
Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filE


court a libel praying
438 one-half gallon c
that the product had
25, 1945, from Peoria,
misbranded fungicide
shipment was made b:


It was all
fell below t
was labeled
Ingredients
hypochlorite
It was all


eg
he
"t


ed that


seizure and condemnation of 1,200 quart (
ontainers of "E Z Bleach," at Muscatine,
been shipped in interstate commerce, on or
Ill., and charging that the product was an a
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
y the Central City Pickle Co.
the product was adulterated in that its stre


1,200 quart con-
of "E Z Bleach."
(I. & F. No. 2395.

; a sodium hypo-
orite than stated

then District of
d in the district


:ontaminers and
Iowa, alleging
about January
dulterated and
of 1910. The


ngth or purity


proposed standard or quality under which it was sold, since it
Active Ingredients: Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by weight Inert


94.75% by weight," while it contained less than 5.25 percent
by weight and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients by
eged that the product was misbranded in that the statement,


Ingredients: Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by weight Inert Ingredients
by weight," borne on the labels, was false and misleading and tended to
and mislead the purchaser, since the product contained less than 5.25


sodium
weight.
"Active
94.75%
deceive
percent


sodium hypochlorite by weight and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients
by weight.
On December 28, 1945, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.

1987. Adulteration and misbranding of "33 Disinfectant Bleach Cleanser." U. S.
v. 1,916 quart containers, more or less, of "33 Disinfeetant Bleach
Cleanser." Decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F.
No. 2406. I.D. No. 13667.)
Examination of samples of "33 Disinfectant Bleach Cleanser" showed that it
was a sodium hypochlorite solution, and contained 4.63 percent of sodium
hypochlorite.
On May 20, 1946, the United States attorney for the Western District of
Louisiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 1,916 quart con-
tainers of "33 Disinfectant Bleach Cleanser" at Lake Charles, La., alleging that
the product had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about September 8,
1945, by the Beacon Chemical Corp., from Dallas, Tex., and charging that the
product was a misbranded and adulterated fungicide within the meaning of the
Insecticide Act of 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, since it was
labeled, "Active Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% By Weight Inert In-


gredients 94.75%,"
by weight and more
It was alleged thi
Ingredient Sodium
borne on the labels,
j I ...


while it contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite
Than 94.75 percent of inert ingredients.
at the product was misbranded in that the statements, "Active
Hypochlorite 5.25% By Weight Inert Ingredients 94.75%,"
were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead
.. 1 *-- A I ** .J* R- cft- 1. .-. I 1.


*
t









1978-2015]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


657


It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that it consisted partially of
an inert substance (water), which did not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
fungi (bacteria), and did not have the name and percentage amount of such inert
ingredient stated on the label, nor did the label bear a statement of the name and
percentage amount of ingredients having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties
and the total percentage of inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that the statements,
"Sanitair Antiseptic Deodorant Spray and Air Conditioner Endorsed for use in
theatres, hotels, hospitals, public buildings, stores, offices, funeral parlors, fac-
tories, apartments, banks, churches, homes, phone booths, streetcars and busses,
taxicabs, restaurants, night clubs, lodges-in fact wherever there is need of an
effective deodorizer and air conditioner. Leaves a lasting, clean, refreshing
odor. Offices Spray small amount into air each morning. Theatres
Use in ventilating systems or spray from balcony before performances. School
Rooms Ordinarily spray class rooms each morning. To help prevent spreading


of cold!
nary c<
needed.
Spray
where
placing


s, spray in
conditions u
. Basemer
according
necessary.
in use.


morning, recess, and noon hour. Ventilating Systems for ordi-
se one ounce for each gallon of water. Increase amount as
its, Dining Rooms, Clubs, Lockers, Recreation or Sick Rooms,
to conditions. Close windows for short time after spraying
Taxi Cabs Spray inside of cab thoroughly before
Cuspidors Add small amount to rinse water after cleaning.


Then add one-half ounce to water in cuspidor for use. Telephones Using atom-
izer spray mouth-piece daily. Lavatories Spray toilets, urinals, and wash bowls
thoroughly each day. Waste Receptacles Spray inside thoroughly after cleaning
Air Conditioning Systems Place a few ounces in a shallow pan and set in air
duct. Shower Rooms Spray walls and floors thoroughly," borne on the labels
affixed to the containers in which the product was packed, were false and mis-
leading and would serve to deceive and mislead prospective purchasers of said
product, as the product when used as directed was not an antiseptic, would not
kill bacteria or aid in the prevention of the spread of common colds or other in-
fectious diseases in any of the places or on any of the articles or things listed,
and could not be relied upon for protection against the spread of any diseases as
is implied.
On March 7, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


1989. Adulteration and misbranding of "FE Z Bleach."
trainers, more or less, of "E Z Bleach." Des
feiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2449. ]
Examination of samples of "E Z Bleach" showed t
chlorite solution and contained approximately 4.02
chlorite.
On November 29, 1946, the United States attorney f(
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 10,098


less, of "E Z Bleach" at Lincoln, Nebr
shipped in interstate commerce, on or ab
Ill., and charging that the product was an
within the meaning of the Insecticide Ac


, alleging t
iout Septemi
Sadulterated
t of 1910.


UI. S. v. 10.098 quart con-
eree of condemnation, for-
I. D. No. 14653.)
:hat it was a sodium hypo-
percent of sodium hypo-

or the District of Nebraska,
, filed in the district court
quart containers, more or
hat the product had been
her 21, 1945, from Chicago,
1 and misbranded fungicide
[he shipment was made by


the Commodity Credit Corp.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated in that its strength or purity
CnlI ^/t Lan-w-i.- 4-ba-t/ rw^*Mn*41nr/-gna n4- n.3 .-ij^ An^ ^.a ^1 --- a --___ J^f _.T.*.T- ^J -- ... .u fh Jt n*a ".. ? nL --4 a ,-t









658


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


1990. Adulteration and misbranding of "Armstrong Pynolene." U. S. v. 55 gal-
lons, more or less, of "Armstrong Pynolene." Decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2447. I. D. No. 14660.)
An examination of the samples of "Armstrong Pynolene" disclosed that it
consisted of soap, water, pine oil, and a small amount of sulphonated oil, water
being present to the extent of 50.5 percent. Its phenol coefficient was 2.2.
On November 27, 1946, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 55 gallons, more or less, of "Armstrong
Pynolene" at Lincoln, Nebr., alleging that the product had been shipped in inter-
state commerce on or about October 11, 1946, by the Oriole Chemical Corp. from
Chicago, Ill., and charging that the product was an adulterated and misbranded
fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be adulterated in that the statements, "Pine Oil
Disinfectant Coefficient 3. F. D. A.," borne on the labels affixed to the
drums containing the product, purported and represented that its standard or
quality was such that it possessed a phenol coefficient of not less than 3 by the
F. D. A. method, and that the product was a pine oil disinfectant, whereas the
strength or purity of the product fell below the professed standard or quality
under which it was sold, as the product did not possess a phenol coefficient of
3 by the F. D. A. method, and water had been substituted in part for the pine oil


dr
Cs
se


sinfectant.
The product
um containir
efficient 3, F
rve to mislead


pine


was alleged to be misbranded in that the
g the product stated in part: "Pine Oil
. D. A.," which statements were false and
Ad and deceive the purchasers, as they cla


disinfectant and possessed


a phenol


coefficient


old label affixed
Disinfectant *
misleading and
aimed the produ
of 3 by the F.


to the
*
would
ct was
D.A.


method, while the product was a mixture of pine oil disinfectant and water and
did not have a phenol coefficient of 3 by the F. D. A. method.
The product was alleged to be further misbranded within the meaning of said
act of Congress in that said product consisted partially of an inert substance
(water), which would not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria),
and the product did not have the name and the percentage amount of such
inert ingredient stated on the label which was affixed to the drum in which the
product was shipped, nor did said label bear a statement of the names and per-
centage amounts of each and every ingredient having fungicidal (bactericidal)
properties, and the total percentage of inert ingredients.
On January 10, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


19



a
ch


91. Adulteration and misbranding of "White-Lin Household Bleach."
310 gallon containers and 36-quart containers, more or less, of
Lin Household Bleach." Decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
struction. (I. & F. No. 2438. I. D. Nos. 13824, 13827.)
Examination of samples of "White-Lin Household Bleach" showed th:
sodium hypochlorite solution and contained 4.37 percent of sodiu
lorite.
On October 11. 1946. the United States attorney for the Southern D


New York, acting -upon a report by the
district court a libel praying seizure and
and 36 quart containers, more or less,
Newburgh, N. Y., alleging that the produ
n-L- an* aL- nfl/ a" nt lra OL* .f- l 4.T 4- .. l ,. J~k .- r.< 4- 0 4 1 1i A F- C** n ^ n- HIt


UT. S. v.
"White-
and de-


at it was
im hypo-

istrict of


Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
condemnation of 310 gallon containers
of "White-Lin Household Bleach," at
ct had been shipped in interstate corn-
nrnnTt~hnl,. N^ T 1 h-p tn A4 flhim -n -- TT -v n^ fl1,n Snpinnl








1976-2015]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


659


94.75 percent inert ingredients, by weight, and the product could not be depended
upon to disinfect the articles listed when used according to directions on the label.
On January 9, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
1992. Misbranding of "Leeds Sterra-Glo." U. S. v. 258 one-gallon containers,
more or less, of "Leeds Sterra-Glo." Decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2458. I. D. No. 14543.)
Examination of a sample of "Leeds Sterra-Glo" showed that it consisted of


alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride,
On March 5, 1947, the United States att
acting upon a report by the Secretary of A
a libel praying seizure and condemnation
or less, of "Leeds Sterra-Glo," at Baltimore
been shipped in interstate commerce, on or
delphia, Pa., by the Rhodes Chemical Corp.,


a wetting agent, and water.
orney for the District of Maryland,


agriculture, filed in
of 258 one-gallon
, Md., alleging tha
about January 29,
and charging that


misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in tha
sisted partially of inert substances which did not prevent,


t


the district court
containers, more


t the
1947
the p
Act o
the
destr


Product had
, from Phila-
roduct was a
f 1910.
product con-
'oy, repel, or


mitigate fungi


product w
and every
a stateme
fungicidal
The pro


(bacteria)


vas packed
one of su
nt of the
(bacterici
duct was


and the labels affixed to the containers in


I did not have
ch ingredients s
name and per
dal) properties
further alleged


which


the name and percentage amount of each
stated on said labels nor did the labels bear
centage amount of the ingredients having
and the total percentage of inert ingredients.
to be misbranded in that the statements-


"Leeds Sterra-Glo A Sterilizing Dish and Glass Washing Compound The
Sterilizing Factor Incorporated in this Liquid is Brand bf Benzalkonium Chloride
(High Molecular alkyl-dimethyl-benzyl-ammonium chlorides) A well known
Government and State approved Germicide for Terminal Disinfection A Cleanser
and a Germicide Manufactured for Leeds Chemical Company Inc., Baltimore 1,
Maryland Sterra-Glo is A Powerful Germicide To
receive the full benefits of Sterra-Glo use one ounce to each gallon of warm water.
This will develop 200 per millions of available quaternary ammonium cornm-


Sound which will meet E
ments for all types of pul
of pan or tank first, then
the faucet as possible to
also create an abundance
silver in the usual way,


City,
: eatin
basin
sure c
suds
rinsin


State and Government sterilizati
g places. Place the Sterra-Glo in
with hot water, using as much pri
completee dissolving of the liquid.
and avoid waste. Wash dishes,
g required, and allow to drain.


on re
the b
essure
Thi,
glasse
Dishe


quire-
ottom
from
s will
s and
s and


glasses washed in this manner will require no toweling and will dry with a high


luster, and a


very


low bacteria


count,


borne on the labels affixed to the containers in which said product was packed,


were false and misleading and would serve to deceive s
chaser in that said statements purported and represented
a sterilizing agent, would sterilize or disinfect dishes or
as directed, contained a sterilizing agent, was a well-kno
State-approved germicide for terminal disinfection and was
and- that 1 ounce of said product to each gallon of water v


tion meeting all City, State,
types of public eating place
sterilizing agent, would not
a dlirpetp didrl nnot rnntin


'-S


, and Government sterilization
s as was claimed, whereas th
sterilize or disinfect dishes or
a gtprilizinr napntf wnas nnt s


tnd mislead the pur-
that the product was
glassware when used
wn Government- and
a powerful germicide,
vould produce a solu-
requirements for all
e product was not a
glassware when used


I.


well-known G(nvern-







660


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., L F.


The United States attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, acting
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel
praying seizure and condemnation of 1,494 one-half gallon containers, more or less,
of "Rainbow Super-Refined Bleach" at Pascagoula, Miss., alleging that the product
had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about October 2, 1945, from Lodi,
N. J., by the Rainbow Chemical Corp., and charging that the product was an
adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
of 1910.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated in that its strength or purity


fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold,
was labeled "Active Ingredient, Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt. I
gredients 94.75% by Wt.," whereas it contained less than 5.25 percent
hypochlorite by weight and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients by
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements,


Ingredient, Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by WI
by Wt.," borne on the labels, were false and
and mislead the purchaser, since the product
sodium hypochlorite by weight and more tha
by weight.
On February 20, 1947, no claimant having ap
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered


L" and "Inert ingredients
misleading and tended to
contained less than 5.25
n 94.75 percent inert ing


since it
nert In-
sodium
weight.
"Active
94.75%
deceive
percent
redients


)peared, a decree of condemnation
that the product be destroyed.


1994. Adulteration and misbranding of "Progress Disinfecting Sure-Klean."
U. S. v. 588 quart containers, more or less, of "Progress Disinfecting Sure-
Klean." Decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F.
No. 2434. I. D. No. 14114.)
Examination of samples of "Progress Disinfecting Sure-Klean" showed that
it was a sodium hypochlorite solution and contained 3.82 percent sodium hypo-
chlorite.
The United States attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, acting
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel
praying seizure and condemnation of 588 quart containers, more or less, of
"Progress Disinfecting Sure-Klean" at Pascagoula, Miss., alleging that the prod-
uct had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about December 27, 1945,
and charging that the product was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The product was shipped by
F. Uddo & Sons, from New Orleans, La.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated in that its strength or purity
fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold, since it was
labeled "Active Ingredient-Sodium Hypochlorite 5% by Wt. When Packed,
Inert Ingredients-95% by Wt.," whereas it contained less than 5 percent sodium
hypochlorite by weight, an4 more than 95 percent inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that statements, "Active
Ingredient-Sodium Hypochlorite 5% by Wt. When Packed" and "Inert In-
gredients-95% by Wt.," borne on the labels, were false and misleading and tended
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the product contained less than
5 percent sodium hypochlorite by weight, and more than 95 percent inert
ingredients.
On February 19, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
1995. Adulteration and misbranding of 'Dixie 'G--D' Phenol--3-." U. S. v. Dixie
Disinfecting Co. Plea of guilty. Fine $100. (I. & F. 2402. I. D. No.
12004.)








1976-2015]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


661


In count two, said product was alleged
ments, (1) "Dixie 'G-D' Phenol-3-," (2)
and (3) "Germ-Destroyer," borne on the
served to deceive and mislead purchasers
phenol, contained more than 50 percent '
of germs.
On July 25, 1946, the defendant entered
posed a fine of $100.


to be
'Inert
label,
, as t
vater,


misbranded in that the state-
Matter Less Than 50% Water,"
were false and misleading and
he product did not consist of
and did not destroy all types


I a plea of guilty, and


the court im-


1996. Adulteration and misbranding of "Addc Pet Powder." U. S.
packages of "Adde Pet Powder." Default decree of conde
forfeiture. (I. & F. No. 2479. I.D. No. 15643.)
An examination of a sample of "Add6 Pet Powder" showed thai
consisted of organic matter of the nature of sawdust, a small amou
oil, and 0.61 percent of dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane.
On September 9, 1947, the United States attorney for the District
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 4,818 2-ounce packa
less, of "Add6 Pet Powder" at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the


shipped in interstate
D. C., and charging
the meaning of the
Farm and Home Pi
The product was
below the professed


v. 4,818 2-oz.
mnation and


b the product
nt of mineral

of Maryland,
district court
ges, more or
product was


e commerce on or about January 21, 1947, from Washington,
that it was a misbranded and adulterated insecticide within
Insecticide Act of 1910. The product was shipped by the
'oducts Co.


1


alleged
stand


to be adult
rd or quality


ments, "Active ingredients Dichloro-di
gredients 90%, Total 100%," borne on ti
that the product contained not less tha
ethane and more than 90 percent inert
less than 10 percent dichloro diphenyl


cent inert i
meaning of
10%, Inert
Stents 2 oz.,"
is needed t
well into ti
affixed to t
leading and


ingredients.


rated ir
y under
iphenyl-t
he labels
n 10 per


ing
t


Said product was


the Insecticide Act of 19
Ingredients 90%, Total
and "Add4 Pet Powder
o insure good results.
ie hair. Dust sleeping
hie packages in which s
would serve to mislead


did not contain 10 percent dichlor


10 in 1
100%
Kills
Kills


That its
which it
richoloroe
affixed to
cent dichl


strength or
was sold, as
thane 10%,
the product,
oro diphenyl


purity fell
the state-
Inert In-
purported
I trichloro-


redients, while said product contained
ichloroethane and more than 90 per-
alleged to be misbranded within' the
hat the statements, "Active Ingredients
* Contains 10% DDT," "Con-
* Ticks. Only a small amount


* Directions-Apply lightly, rubbing
quarters and runways," borne on the labels
aid product was packed were false and mis-
and deceive purchasers since the said product
o diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT), did con-


tain more than 90 percent inert ingredients, the net cont
was less than 2 ounces, and the product when used as di
ticks.
On November 13, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a
tion and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the


nts of said packages
rected would not kill

decree of condemna-
product be destroyed.


1997. Adulteration and misbranding of "Imperial DDT and Pyrethrum Powder."
Adulteration and misbranding of "Doo-Al Fly Spray." U. S. v. Imperial
Chemical Co., a corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine $25 on each of four
counts, or a total of $100, and costs. (I. & F. No. 2413. I. D. Nos. 12068,
12070.)


An examination of a sample of "Imperial DDT
that it contained 7.54 percent DDT (dichloro
percent pyrethrins, and prophyllite.


and Pyrethrum Powder" showed
diphenyl trichloroethane), 0.05


&d








662


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I.F.


"Active Ingredients'
DDT (Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethane) ------ 10.00%
Pyrethrins------- ---------------- -------- .05%
Inert Ingredients ---- ----------------------- 89.95%,"
whereas said product contained less than 10 percent DDT (dichloro diphenyl
trichloroethane) and more than 89.95 percent inert ingredients.
In count two, said product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,


(1) "DDT and Pyrethrum Powder" and
(2) "Active Ingredients:
DDT (Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethane) -.
Pyrethrins ----------- ------
Inert Ingredients-------------------
were false and misleading and served to deceive and mislead pu
said product was not a mixture of DDT and pyrethrum powder a
tain 10 percent dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) and di<
than 89.95 percent inert ingredients.
In count three, the product "Doo-Al Fly Spray" was alleged to
in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard oi
which it was sold, as the product was labeled in part,


10. 00%
.05%
89.95%,"


Lrchasers, since
nd did not con-
d contain more


be adulterated
r quality under


"Contains 5% DDT" and
"Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethane------------ 5%
Lethane Special 384 ----------- -------- 7%o
Base Oil ---------------------------88%,"
whereas said product did not contain 5 percent dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane
(DDT), and did not contain 7 percent Lethane Special 384.
In count four, said product was alleged to be misbranded in that the labels
stated,


"Contains 5% DDT" and
"Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethane-- -------- 5%
Lethane Special 384------------------- 7%
Base Oil------- ----------------- 88%
"Doo-A1 Fly Spray Farm Uses: As an aid in killing flies,
on horses, cattle and hogs. Keep doors and win-
dows closed. Spray freely on horses, cattle and hogs. Also
in stables, cattle barns. Repeat as often as neces-
sary. Outdoors: Camping, fishing, hunting. Spray Clothing
and surroundings. Repels flies,"


which said stall
purchasers in
trichloroethan
product when
cattle, and hog
it repel all kin


cements were false
that said product
e (DDT) and les
used as directed
s, would not be an
ds of flies outdoor


and misleading and served to deceive and mislead
contained less than 5 percent dichloro diphenyl
s than 7 percent Lethane Special 384, and the
in addition to being unsafe for use on horses,
aid in killing all flies on such animals, nor would
*s.


On October 1, 1946. the defendant entered a plea of guilty, and the court imposed
a fine of $25 on each of four counts, or a total of $100, and assessed costs in the
sum of $25.


1998.


Adulteration and mnisbranding of "33 Disinfectant Bleach Cleanser." UT. S.
v. 3,522 quart bottles, more or less, of "33 Disinfectant Bleach Cleanser,"
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No.
2465. I.D. No. 15705.)








1976-2015]


NOTICES


JTJDGMIflNT


663


Hypochlorite


product


5.25%


contained


Sby weight"
less than 5.'


"Inert


percent


more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients.


ingredients 94.75%,"


sodium


hypochlorite


whereas
7 weight


The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements "Active In-


gredient Sodium Hypochlorite


5.25%


by weight Inert Ingredients 94.75%," borne


on the labels affixed to the containers of the product,


and tended to deceive and mislead the


purchaser, si


were false and misleading
ace the product contained


less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite by weight and more than 94.75 percent
inert ingredients.
On July 11, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and the United States marshal was ordered to destroy the
product.


1999. Adulteration and misbranding of "Add4
ounce packages of "Add6 Kilursect,"
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No.


U. S.


v. 4,037 two-


Default decree of condemnation,
S2481. I. D. No. 15661.)


An examination


a sample


"Add6 Kilursect"


showed


that


it consisted


of an organic material of the nature of sawdust, rose-colored dye, and 4.40 per-
cent of dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT).


On October 6, 1947,


the United States attorney for the District of Maryland,


acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a


libel
Kilur,


praying
sect" at


seizure


Baltimore,


condemnation


Md.,


alleging


of 4,037


that


interstate commerce on or about January 21,


2-ounce


the product


packages
id been


of "Add6
shipped in


1947, by the Farm and Home Prod-


ucts Co. from Washington, D. C., and charging that the product was an adulterated
and misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 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, as the statements


"Active


Ingredients


Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane


(DDT


10%


Inert


gredients 90%, 100%," borne on the labels affixed to the packages in which said
product was packed, purported and represented that said product contained not
less than 10 percent dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) and not more than
90 percent inert ingredients, whereas said product contained less than 10 percent
dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane and more than 90 percent inert ingredients.


product


Ingredients
90%, 100%,


was


alleged


to be misbranded


Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane


"and


in that
(DDT)


the statements,


10%,


Inert


"Active


Ingredients


"AddA Kilursect Insect Powder kills roaches, ants, moths, silver-


fish, bedbugs, waterbugs, and many other insects"


"DIRECTIONS


"Roaches


Dust Kilursect into cracks and crevices or wherever roaches hide.


Also dust Kilursect on floors and other places where roaches run.


Repeat


as necessary.


"Ants


Dust into cracks, crevices, on window sills, lawns, and wherever ants


are seen. As ants generally travel along regular routes, these paths should
be dusted with Kilursect.
"Bedbugs: Dust Kilursect thoroughly in and under slats, in all joints, corners,


cracks, and crevices of bedsteads, and at other infested places.
tresses, baseboards, and wall cracks.


"Fleas


Also mat-


Kilursect is very effective in killing fleas in rat burrows, in basements,


in houses, on bare ground under buildings and in lawns.


on dogs, about


If used directly


1 tablespoonful of the 10 percent powder to an average-size








664


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


On November 13, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
2000. Adulteration and misbranding of "Ocean Spray Insecticide." U. S. v. 669
pint bottles and 393 quart bottles, more or less, of "Ocean Spray Insecti-
cide." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
(I. & F. No. 2463. I. D. No. 15704.)
An analysis of "Ocean Spray Insecticide" showed that it consisted of mineral
oil, organic thiocyanates, and 3.74 percent of dichloro diphenyl triochloroethane.
On April 25, 1947, the United States attorney for the Western District of
Arkansas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
trict court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 669 pint bottles and 393
quart bottles, more or less, of "Ocean Spray Insecticide," alleging that the
product had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 20, 23, 25,
and 26, 1946, by the Ocean Coffee Co., Inc, from Shreveport, La., to DeQueen,
Ark., and charging that the product was an adulterated and misbranded insecti-
cide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 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, as the labels
affixed to the bottles containing the product stated in part "Contains 5% D. D. T.,"
whereas said product contained less than 5 percent dichloro diphenyl
trichloroethane.


The
tains 5
be clea
taking
are to
Closets


product
% D.D.
ned and
care to
be store
should


was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (1) "Con-
T.," (2) "To Kill Fleas. Clothing to be stored should
aired and sprayed carefully from a distance of one or two feet,
see that seams and folds are wetted. Chests in which woolens
d should be thoroughly sprayed before being filled with clothes.


be sprayed


on the garments," and (3)
to Kill Ants *," bo
product was packed, were
mislead prospective purcha
and represented that the
diphenyl trichloroethane;


liberally at least twice a month, directing the spray
"To Kill Roaches, Water Bugs and Silverfish *
rne on the labels affixed to the bottles in which said
false and misleading and would serve to deceive and
sers of the product in that said statements purported
product contained not less than 5 percent dichloro
that the product when used as directed would kill


fleas, and that said product could be depended
water bugs, silverfish, and ants, whereas said
percent dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane; when
kill fleas, and the product could not be depended
water bugs, silverfish, and ants unless repeatedly
On July 11, 1947, no claimant having appeared,


upon
produ
used
upon
used.
a de


as a control for roaches,
ct contained less than 5
as directed it would not
as a control for roaches,

cree of condemnation and


forfeiture was entered, and the
the product.
2001. Misbranding of "Ced-O-Ba
440 bags, more or less,
Odor." Decree of cond
No. 2452. I. D. No. 14026.
An examination of "Ced-O-Ba
that the product consisted of rei
On December 11, 1946, the U
Dakota, acting upon a report by
court a libel praying seizure a
"Ced-O-Bag, Real Cedar Chips
Sr J i *m I -i -


e
)

d


United States marshal was ordered to destroy

g, Real Cedar Chips With Extra Odor." U. S. v.
of "Ced-O-Bag, Real Cedar Chips With Extra
nation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F.

g, Real Cedar Chips With Extra Odor" showed
cedar chips with 3.1 percent cedar oil.


united States attorney for the District of South
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
nd condemnation of 440 bags, more or less, of
With Extra Odor," at Sioux Falls, S. Dak.,
-& S ft i 'UH







1976-2015]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


665


prospective purchasers of said product, as said statement purported and repre-
sented that said product when used as directed was a moth repellent and a flea
repellent, whereas said product was neither a moth repellent nor a flea repellent
when used as directed.
On January 14, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of con-
demnation was entered, and it was ordered that the United States marshall dis-
pose of said article by taking it to the garbage disposal grounds at Sioux Falls,
S. Dak., and there burying it.


2002. Adulteration and
gallon bottles,
condemnation,
15804.)
Examination of samp
sodium hypochlorite sol


OnJ
Indiana
district
bottles,
product
from D4


was


une 5, 1947, th
L, acting upon
court a libel p
more or less, o:
had been shipp
etroit, Mich., by


an adulterated


misbranding of "Roman Cleanser." UI. S. v. 447 one-half
more or less, of "Roman Cleanser." Default decree of
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2467. I. D. No.

les of "Roman Cleanser" showed that this product was a
lution and contained 3.40 percent of sodium hypochlorite.
e United States attorney for the Northern District of
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
raying seizure and condemnation of 447 one-half gallon
f "Roman Cleanser" at La Porte, Ind., alleging that the
ed in interstate commerce, on or about October 23, 1946,
the Roman Cleanser ,Co., and charging that the product
nd misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the


Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated in that its strength or purity
fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold, since it
was labeled "Ingredients: Active, Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25%, Inert, 94.75%,"
whereas, it contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite and more than
94.75 percent inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements, "In-
gredients: Active, Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25%; Inert, 94.75%" and "Disinfect-
ing Solution of 500 parts per million available chlorine is made by adding 1 part
Roman Cleanser to 99 parts water-approx. % cup to 3 gallons. (Other dilu-
tions proportionate.) Before disinfecting, articles must be thoroughly cleansed.
Immerse several minutes. For spraying, use 1,000 parts per million solution,"


borne on the labels, were false and misleading and tender to deceive a
lead the purchaser, since the product contained less than 5.25 percent
hypochlorite and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients, and one
said product added to 99 parts of water would not give a disinfectant co
500 parts per million of available chlorine.
On July 21, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnat
forfeiture, was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroy


nd mis-
sodium
part of
staining


ion and
ed.


2003. Adulteration and misbranding of "Old Nick's Seed Treatment." U. S. v.
1,586 pint containers, more or less, of "Old Nick's Seed Treatment."
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F.
No. 2471. I. D. No. 15842.)
Examination of samples of "Old Nick's Seed Treatment" showed that it was a
coal tar oil, containing tarry matter, carbonlike material, and a small amount of
phenols.
On July 15, 1947, the United States attorney for the District of South Dakota,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 1,586 pint containers, more or less,


of "Old Nick's Seed Treatment"
had been shipped in interstate c
fl^ -. _^ -. T 11f 'L -^ JUL ^ -. 3 Xf i l TeT ,-.


at Huron, S: Dak., alleging that the product
commerce, on or about October 6, 1945, from
cV.^ 21 m Jrr ... ~ 4 fl --- A -. rt *_t i


t








666


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


labels, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and
chaser, since the product contained less than 3.05 percent
product when used as directed would not help protect corn fro
worms, and all other pests that attack seed in the ground.
On August 26, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decre
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the produ


mislead the pur-
cresols and said
m heartbugs, wire


Sof condemnation
ct be destroyed.


2004. Adulteration and misbranding of "Pine Oil Disinfectant." U. S. v. Sanco
Products Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine $100. (I. & F. No. 2408. I. D.
Nos. 11745, 12016.)
An examination of two samples of "Pine Oil Disinfectant" showed that the
samples contained 46.4 percent water and 39.6 percent water, respectively.
On August 6, 1946, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Ohio,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an
information against the Sanco Products Co., Inc., a corporation, alleging shipment
in interstate commerce on or about November 29, 1945, and August 17, 1945, from
Greenville, Ohio, to Washington, Ind., and Marshall, Ill., of a quantity of a product


known as "Pine Oil Disinfectant," which was deemed
and misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the
In count one, the product was alleged to be adultery
substituted in part for the "Pine Oil Disinfectant."


Sto have been an adulterated
Insecticide Act of 1910.
ated in that water had been
In count two, the product


was alleged to be misbranded in that the labels stated (1) "Pine Oil Disinfectant,"
and (2) "Inert Matter Not To Exceed 15% Water," whereas said product was
a mixture of Pine Oil Disinfectant and water, and water was present in excess
of 15 percent.


In count three,
substituted in pa
In count four,
stated (1) "Pinet
Water," whereas
and water was pr
On August 15,


the product was alleged to be adulterated in that water had been
rt for the Pine Oil Disinfectant.
said product was alleged to be misbranded in that the labels
SOil Disinfectant" and (2) "Inert Matter Not To Exceed 15%


said product was a mixture of Pine Oil Disinfectant and water,
esent in excess of 15 percent.
1946, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to all four counts


and a fine of $25 was assessed on each count, making a total of $100.


Adulteration and misb
U. S. v. 4,734 six-ounc
Default decree of con
2478. I.D. No. 15641.)
examination of "Add6
of an organic material


amount o
On S'ep
acting up
- f *. -


'-a


randing of "Adde Kilursect Insecticide Powder."
e packages of "Add6 Kilursect Insecticide Powder."
idemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No.

Kilursect Insecticide Powder" showed that it con-
of the nature of sawdust, rose-colored dye, a small


f oil, and 5.47 percent of dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane.


tember 10, 1947,
on a report by t


lbel praying seizure ana
of "Add4 Kilursect Inse
product had been shipped
and January 2, 1947, fro
branded and adulterated
1910. The product was sl


The
below
stated
Ingredi
drlinhran


the United States attorney for the District of Maryland,
he Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a
condemnation of 4,734 six-ounce packages, more or less,
cticide Powder" at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the
Sin interstate commerce on or about December 9, 1946,
m Washington, D. C., and charging that it was a mis-
insecticide within the meaning of the Iisecticide Act of
dipped by the Farm and Home Products Co.


product was alleged to b(
the professed standard o
"Active ingredients: Dich
ents 90%," whereas the
vil -lrichlnrnmthnn. (DfDT


e adulterated in that it
r quality under which
loro-diphenyl-trichloroe
product contained less
and mnre than 9( nort


;s strength or purity fell
it was sold, as its label
thane (DDT) 10%, Inert
than 10 percent dichloro
4ant inert fntrrlinntg


2005.


An
sisted


r


*








1976-2015]

On October 3, 1947
acting upon a report
a libel praying seizur
Contains 15% DDT
shipped in interstate
1947, by the Farm an
that the product wa


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


667


, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland,
by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
e and condemnation of 4,317 packages of "Add4 Wafer-Cide
at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the product had been
commerce on or about February 5, 1947, and February 12,
d Home Products Co. from Washington, D. C., and charging
LS an adulterated and misbranded insecticide within the


meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


The product was alleged
below the professed standard
affixed to the containers in
gredients: Dichloro-dipheny
85%," whereas said produce
trichloroethane and more th
The product was alleged t


Ingredients


Dichloro-dipher


to be adulterated in


that its strength or purity fell


d or quality under which it was sold,
which the product was packed stated
l-trichloroethane (DDT) 15%; Inert
t contained less than 15 percent dichl
in 85 percent inert ingredients.
o be misbranded in that the statements,
lyl-trichloroethane (DDT) 15%; Inert


85%" and "lures and kills roaches, flies, ants, m
on the labels affixed to the containers in which
false and misleading and served to deceive and
product contained less than 15 percent dichloro d
and more than 85 percent inert ingredients, and th
wouldenot lure theinsects specified in the label a
mosquitoes, and silverfish.
On November 13, 1947, no claimant having app
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered


osquitoes, an
said product
mislead the
Liphenyl trich
e product wh
nd would no1


d silver
was ]
purcha
iloroet
Len use
t kill r


as the labels
"Active In-
Ingredients:
oro diphenyl

(1) "Active
Ingredients:
rfish," borne
packed, were
sers, as said
hane (DDT)
d as directed
coaches, ants,


eared, a decree of condemnation
that the product be destroyed.


2007. Misbranding of "Adde Hygienic Cleaning Powder." U. S. v. 4,926 three-
ounce packages of "Add6 Hygienic Cleaning Powder." Default decree
of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2480. I. D.
No. 15642.)
An examination of samples of "Add4 Hygienic Cleaning Powder" showed that
it consisted of organic matter of the nature of sawdust, a small amount of


mineral oil, and 0.81 percent of dichloro diphenyl


On September 9, 1947, the
acting upon a report by the
a libel praying seizure and c
Hygienic Cleaning Powder"


1
;(


been shipped in interstate co
ington, D. C. The product
and was a misbranded inse
of 1910.
The product was alleged ti
inert substances (sawdust)
insects, and didt not have the
ent stated on the label, nor


percentage amount,
and the total perce
The product wa
"Contents 3 ounces
product was packe
mislead purchasers
On November 13


United States attorney
Secretary of Agricul
condemnation of 4,926
at Baltimore, Md.,
)mmerce on or about
was shipped by the


cticide within


trichloroethane.
y for the District of Maryland,
ture, filed in the district court
three-ounce packages of "Adde
alleging that the product had
January 22, 1947, from Wash-
Farm and Home Products Co.


the meaning


of the Insecticide Act


o be misbranded in that it consisted partially of an
which did not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
name and percentage amount of such inert ingredi-
did the label bear a statement of the names and


s of each and every ingredient having
ntage of inert ingredients.
s further alleged to be misbranded
," borne on the labels affixed to the c
d, was false and misleading' and wou
, as the net contents of said packages
, 1947, no claimant having appeared,


; insecticidal properties

in that the statement,
ontainers in which said
Ild serve to deceive and
was less than 3 ounces.
a decree of condemna-


r









668


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


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, as its label
stated: tActive ingredients: Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) 5%,
Cleansing Agents 95%," whereas said product contained less than 5 percent di-
chloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) and more than 95 percent cleansing
agents.


Said product was alleged to be
ingredients: Dichloro-diphenyl-tri
95% with 5% DDT," "N
Rug-Life with 5% D.D.T. *
pets kills moths, carpet 1
is the only product on market that
be entirely spread on rug or carpe
on rug for hour or overnight. It


Smisbranded in that the statements: "Active
chloroethane (DDT) 5%, Cleansing Agents
et weight when packed-8 ounces," and "Adde
*For Moth Proofing Rugs and Car-
beetles, silverfish, and other insects. Rug-Life
moth-proofs and cleans at the same time. Can
t and then removed. Does not have to remain
does not evaporate or lose its qualities on ex-


posure to air. One eight-ounce can of Rug-Life should last sit months, on
monthly applications on a 9 x 12 rug. If put on floor under rug will
moth-proof the rug or carpet. If put on rug and stored will keep it-moth-proof.
Can be removed from rug either by carpet sweeper, broom or vacuum cleaner.
* Thi tnn+in UPnR TTLin il li ht# fil-n.4 n\-f 1 ry+- 4tinnUnfr.


L rJe.sL LUIlO I .I Ls u1153 ES Lg. ..-ALA
rug or carpet. Scrub in with bris.
sweeper or vacuum cleaner," borne
which said product was packed, wer
deceive and mislead purchasers of
contain 5 percent dichloro diphenyl tr
product should have been listed in
packages in which said product was
product when used as directed would:


e prn e g m o pow er over en re
tle brush. Brush out with broom, carpet


on the labels affixed to
e false and misleading an
said product, in that said
ichloroethane (DDT), the
inert ingredients, the net
s packed was less than 8


the packages in
d would seve to
product did not
remainder of the
contents of the
ounces, and the


not kill all insects other than those specified


and would not mothproof rugs and carpets.
On November 13, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
2009. Adulteration and misbranding of "Pinelo." Adulteration and misbranding
of "Costello Slayzm Residual Insect Spray or Paint." U. S. v. J. S.
Costello & Son Brush Co., a corporation. Plea of nolo contender. Fine
$25 on each of four counts, or a total of $100. (I. & F. No. 2411. I. D. Nos.
12142, 12135.)


An examination of a sample of
amount of 73.35 percent.
An examination of a sample of"
that it consisted of mineral oil
trichloroethane.


"Pinelo" showed that it contained water in the

Slayzm Residual Insect Spray or Paint" showed
containing 1.32 percent of dichloro diphenyl


On January 16, 1947, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against J. S. Costello & Son Brush Co.,'a corporation,
alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about December 18, 1945, and


December 27, 1945,
of quantities of tw
Insect Spray or Pa
branded fungicide
"Costello Slayzm R
branded insecticide
In count one, th


from St. Louis, Mo., to Grafton, Ill., and East St. L
o products known as "Pinelo" and "Costello Slayzm
int," charging that the "Pinelo" was an adulterated
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910
residual Insect Spray or Paint" was an adulterated
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
e product "Pinelo" was alleged to be adulterated in


ouis, Ill.,
Residual
and mis-
and the
and mis-

that its









1976-2015]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


669


(1) "5% DDT" and (2) "Slayzm Residual Insect Spray or Paint *
Kills Roaches, Flies, Ants, Mosquitoes, Waterbugs, Silverfish, Bed Bugs, Gnats,
Fleas and Other Common Insects Surfaces treated with Slayzm will repel and
kill insects contacting treated area up to 60 days or more Apply to
area to be treated by painting with brush, thoroughly wet surface, or spray
with sprayer in form of heavy wet mist. Use at rate of about one quart to 250
square feet of surface. Do not spray into air as fine mist Fleas etc.
When there is no objection to crystalline residual deposit left by Slayzm, apply


to all surface areas where these insects
ings, lighting fixtures, door and window
of breeding, spray on standing water a
necessary Roaches, Waterbi
refrigerators, sinks, cabinets and food p
shelving, cracks and crevices around ba
hitting as many insects as possible. A


commonly rest and are seen, walls, ceil-
frames and screens. To aid in prevention
mnd garbage pails. Repeat treatment as
ugs, Ants, etc. Spray liberally around
processing equipment, underside of tables,
seboards, moulding and other woodwork,
pply also around pipe openings in walls,


floors and ceilings. Repeat as necessary. Kill is certain in from 1 to
which said statements were false and misleading and served to deceive
lead purchasers in that said product did not contain 5 percent DDT
diphenyl trichloroethane) and the product, when used as directed, w
residual spray or paint, would not repel the insects named, and woul(
them on treated areas up to 60 days or more, would not kill fleas and E
represented by the term "etc.," and would not kill roaches, waterbugs,
all insects included in the term "etc." in from 1 to 4 hours.
On January 31, 1947, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contender
court imposed a fine of $25 on each of four counts, or a total of $100.


2010. Adulteration and misbranding of "Marshall's Triple Action Roac
Misbranding of "Marshall's Insect Spray." UI. S. v. Bernard M
individual, and Marshall Sanitary Products Corp., a corporate
dismissed as to Bernard Marshall, individually. Plea of g
Marshall Sanitary Products Corp. Fine of $200, and costs.
2397. I. D. Nos. 9374, 9444.)
An examination of a sample of "Marshall's Triple Action Roac
showed that it contained 1.53 percent borax, pyrethrum powder that
had lost much of its active constituents, and flour.
An examination of a sample of "Marshall's Insect Spray" showed
sisted of a mineral oil, an organic thiocyanate, and a small amount
On February 11, 1946, the United States attorney for the Northern
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in


4 hours,"
and mis-
(dichloro
7as not a
i not kill
ill insects
ants, and


e and the


h Powder."
marshall, an
on. Action
uilty as to
(I. & F. No.

lh Powder"
apparently

that it con-
of perfume.
District of
the district


court an information against Bernard Marshall, an individual, and Marshall
Sanitary Products Corp., a corporation, alleging shipment in interstate commerce,
on or about, August 20, 1943, and December 20, 1943, of quantities of products
known as "Marshall's Triple Action Roach Powder" and "Marshall's Insect
Spray" from Chicago, Ill., to Racine, Wis. The product "Marshall's Triple Action
Roach Powder" was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide within the mean-
ing of the Insecticide Act of 1910 and "Marshall's Insect Spray" was a mis-
branded insecticide within the meaning of said act.
In count one, the product "Marshall's Triple Action Roach Powder" was al-


leged to be adulterated in that its
standard or quality under which i
"Borax 30%," whereas said product
In count two, said product was
nVianl- "Pnrarf QAVL" hnrna nnT 4-ha in)-


strength
t was so
t did not
alleged tc
tIc Trrod


or purity fell below the
lId, since the label stated
contain 30 percent borax.
) be misbranded in that I
Palon on/i rnilcslaon rHri onA/


professed
in part.

he state-
3aTTml 4-n-


7


4









670


INSECTICIDE


ACT


11W. J., IX


In count three, the product was alleged to be misbranded in that the product
consisted partially of inert substances (substances other than borax and pyre-
thrins) which did not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, ant? the product
did not have the names and percentage amounts of each and every one of such
inert ingredients stated on the label, nor did the label bear a statement of the
names and percentage amounts of each and every ingredient having insecticidal
properties and the total percentage of inert ingredients present.
In count four, the product "Marshall's Insect Spray" was alleged to be mis-
branded in that the labels stated in part,
(1) "Marshall's Insect Spray Kills Roaches, Water
Bugs Spray freely into all cracks and crevices and other hiding places
and whenever possible spray directly onto the insects" and (2) "Non-Poisonous,"
which said statements were false and misleading and served to deceive and mis-
lead purchasers, as said product would not kill roaches and water bugs when
used as directed and said product was not nonpoisonous, but was in fact definitely
poisonous.
On December 4, 1946, the case was dismissed as to the defendant Bernard
Marshall. A plea of guilty was entered as to the defendant Marshall Sanitary
Products Corporation, and the court imposed a fine of $200 and costs.
2011. Adulteration and misbranding of "Super Pyro-Cuper, Cuper-Dust, Killer-
Cuper, Irish Potato Spray, and New Pyro-Cuper." U. S. v. Ole A. Flat
and Lawrence A. Brown, individuals, doing business as copartners under
the style and trade name of Flaat Farm Supply Co. Plea of nolo con-
tendere. Fine $770, plus $37 costs. (I. & F. No. 2386. I. D. Nos. 9320,
9321, 9322, 9489, 9491.)
An examination of samples of "Super Pyro-Cuper" showed that it consisted
of siliceous material, with cuprous oxide, mineral oil, and pyrethrins. The exam-
ination also showed that the product contained 3.1 percent and 2.8 percent of
cuprous oxide.
An examination of a sample of "Cuper-Dust" showed that it consisted of silice-
ous material and cuprous oxide, the cuprous oxide being the only active in-
gredient. The product actually contained 3.27 percent of cuprous oxide.
An examination of a sample of "Killer-Cuper" showed that the product con-
sisted of siliceous material, lime, cuprous oxide, and calcium arsenate and
arsenite. The product actually contained 3.66 percent of cuprous oxide.
An examination of samples of "Irish Potato Spray" showed that the product
contained calcium arsenate, calcium arsenite, cuprous oxide, and other ingre-
dients which were inert. The average cuprous oxide content was 10.05 percent.
An examination of samples of "New Pyro-Cuper" showed that the product con-
tained siliceous material, an organic thiocyanate, a small amount of pyrethrins,
and cuprous oxide. This product actually contained 3.87 percent of cuprous
oxide.
On July 9, 1945, the United States attorney for the District of North Dakota,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an
information against Ole A. Flaat and Lawrence A. Brown, individuals, doing
business as copartners under the style and trade name of Flaat Farm Supply Co.,


alleging shipment in interstate commerce, on or about
May 25, 1944, and June 28, 1944, from Grand Forks, N.
of quantities of "Super Pyro-Cuper, Cuper-Dust,
Spray, and New Pyro-Cuper" which were deemed to
niichrnnl oAn Snir Q nn hnC i i^ r-nc. ,1r'+hi^ T1 -ha/ m~no niSna nP tim1'h Tn


July 28, 1943,
Dak., to Minn
Killer-Cuper,
have been ac
a3onffllnilr Ac&,1


June 23, 1943,
eapolis, Minn.,
Irish Potato
lulterated and
v,- lOin







1962015
1976-2015]


NOPIC~2S


JUDGMENT


671


euprous oxide, less than 4.10 percent copper expressed as metallic copper, and
more than 95.40 percent inert ingredients.
In count four, said product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements,
"Yellow Cuprous Oxide 4.60% Inert Ingredients 95.40% Total
100.00% (Total Copper Content 4.10%)," borne on the labels; were false and
misleading and served to deceive and mislead purchasers, since said product con-
tained less than 4.60 percent cuprous oxide, less than 4.10 percent copper ex-
pressed as metallic copper, and more than 95.40 percent inert ingredients. The
said product was further misbranded within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
in that the statement "25 Lbs.," borne on said product's labels, was false and


misleading and served to de
of Said product was less tha
In count five, the product
the said product's strength (
under which it was sold i
Oxide 4.60%," w
cuprous oxide.
In count six, said product
"Yellow Cuprous Oxide *
misleading and served to de
trained less than 4.60 percent
to be misbranded in that th
and misleading and served


ceive and mislead purchasers
a 25 pounds.
"Killer-Cuper" was alleged to
)r purity fell below the profess
n that said product was lab
hereas said product contained


was alleged to b
* 4.60%,"
ceive and mislea(
it cuprous oxide.
e statement, "25
to deceive and


in that the net weight


be adulterated in that
ed standard or quality
eled "Yellow Cuprous
less than 4.60 percent


'e misbranded in that the statement,
borne on the labels, was false and
d purchasers, since said product con-
Said product was further alleged
Lbs.," borne on the label, was false
mislead purchasers in that the net


weight of said product Wvas less than 25 pounds.
In count seven, the product "Irish Potato Spray" was alleged to be adulterated
in that said product's strength or purity fell below the professed standard or
quality under which it was sold, as the product was labeled "Active Ingre-
dients Cuprous Oxide 13.9%, Inactive Ingredients 50.75%, Metallic
Copper Content 12.4%," whereas said product contained less than 13.9 percent
cuprous oxide, more than 50.75 percent inactive ingredients, and less than 12.4
percent copper expressed as metallic copper.
In count eight, said product was alleged to be misbranded in that the state-
ments, "Active Ingredients Cuprous Oxide 13.9%, Inactive Ingredients
50.75%, Metallic Copper Content 12.4%," borne on the labels, were false and
misleading and served to deceive and mislead the purchasers in that said product
contained less than 13.9 percent cuprous oxide, more than 50.75 percent inactive
ingredients, and less than 12.4 percent copper expressed as metallic copper.
In count nine, said product was alleged to be further misbranded within the
meaning of the Insecticide Act in that the article was a product other than lead
arsenate or paris green containing arsenic and the label did not bear a statement
of the total amount of arsenic expressed as metallic arsenic.
In count ten, the product "New Pyro-Ouper" was alleged to be adulterated in


that its strength or purity fell
which it was sold, since the label
Copper 4.1%)," whereas said p
oxide and less than 4.10 percent
In count eleven, the product
in that the statements "Cuprous
borne on the labels were false


below the professed standard or quality under
s stated "Cuprous Oxide 4.60% (Total
product contained less than 4.60 percent cuprous
copper expressed as metallic copper.
'New Pyro-Cuper" was alleged to be misbranded
s Oxide 4.60% (Total Copper4.1%),"
and misleading and served to deceive and mis-


lead purchasers since said product contained less than 4.60 percent cuprous oxide
and less than 4.10 percent copper expressed as metallic copper.
On September 18, 1945, the defendants having entered a plea of nolo contender,
j __-t ^-.-------__--1 / &t O,"- _- A l --- i -. t.j -- j d.







672


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


It
fell
was
gre.
chlo


was alleged that the product
below the professed standard
labeled "Active Ingredients:
: 95.75% by Wt.," while it co
rite by weight and more than


Swas adulterated in that its strength or purity
d or quality under which it was sold, since it
Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt. Inert In-
ntained less than 5.25 percent of sodium hypo-
94.75 percent inert ingredients by weight.


It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements, "Active
Ingredients: Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt. Inert Ingre.: 94.75% by Wt.,"
borne on the labels, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead
the purchaser, since the product contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypo-
chlorite by weight and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients by weight.
On July 21, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
2013. Adulteration and misbranding of "Lunox Washing Fluid." U. S. v. 1,812
quart bottles and 101 gallon bottles, more or less, of "Llnox Washing
Fluid." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
(I. & F. No. 2466. I. D. No. 15540.)
An examination of samples of "Lunox Washing Fluid" showed that this prod-


uct was a sodium I
hypochlorite.
On May 28, 1947,
York, acting upon a
court a libel prayir
gallon bottles, more
that the product hE


h


hypochlorite solution and


contained


the United States attorney for the Northern l
L report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
ig seizure and condemnation of 1,812 quart b
e or less, of Lunox Washing Fluid at Utica,
id been shipped in interstate commerce on or


percent of sodium


districtt
in the
)ottles
N. Y.,
about


of New
district
and 101
alleging
Decem-


ber 4, 1945, and August 14, 1946, by the Lunox Chemical Works from Avoca, Pa.,
and charging that the product was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated in that its strength or purity
fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold, since it
was labeled "Active Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by wt. Inert Ingredi-
ents 94.75% by wt.," while it contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypo-
chlorite and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements "Active
Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by wt. Inert Ingredients 94.75% by wt.,"
borne on the labels, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead
the purchaser, since the product contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypo-
chlorite and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients.
On July 23, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
2014. Misbranding of Germ-a-Zone. U.S. v. 429 dispensers, more or less, of
"Germ-a-Zone." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and de-
struction. (I. & F. No. 2462. I. D. No. 14541.)
An examination of "Germ-a-Zone" showed this product to be an automatic
atomizer containing glycols, isopropyl alcohol, a compound of the nature of a
quaternary ammonium compound, together with a propellant.
On or about April 15, 1947, the United States attorney for the District of
Columbia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis-
trict court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 429 dispensers, more or
less, of "Germ-a-Zone" at Washington, D. C., alleging that the product had
been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 3, 1947, by the Knapp-
Monarch Co. from St. Louis, Mo., and charging that the product was a misbranded
fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.





NOTICES


JUDGMENT


673


and doors; spray until light mist permeates room. Repeat hourly to guard
against air-borne germs.' In the Kitchen Spray sink and drainboards directing
spray into drain. Cover entire surface with a light film. To Kill Air-
Borne Germs, close windows and door of room to be sprayed. In average
10' x 10' x 10' (1,000 cu. ft.) room, spray for 8 to 10 seconds. To Kill Germs
on Surfaces, spray from a distance of about 1 ft. covering with a light film. For
Most Effective Results From Germ-a-Zone Follow instructions for various sug-
gested uses. Spray often to safeguard against infectious germs in sickrooms,
bathrooms, kitchens, and all germ-laden household items. Store dispenser in
cool dry place."
(Circular)
"Kills Disease Germs in the Air on Surfaces. Germ-a-Zone
kills such germs as Pneumococci, Streptococci, Staphylococci, Influenza Virus, etc.
that cause such diseases as the common Cold, Sinusitis, Influenza, Scarlet Fever,
Mumps, 'Strep Throat', Boils, etc. 'Push Button' Protection against the
Spread of Disease Germs At the pressing of a button, you can now have protection
against the spread of disease-germs causing such diseases as Influenza Common
Colds Boils Pneumonia 'Strep Throat' Mumps Sinusitis Scarlet Fever and certain
others. Germ-a-Zone, used as directed, means death to bacteria, viruses, etc.
in the air; on floor and walls; on plumbing fixtures, furniture, food containers,
etc. Germ-a-Zone destroys germs on contact!" "Use Germ-a-Zone In the Sick-
room In the Nursery In Bathrooms On Toilets In Sleeping Rooms On Telephones
In the Kitchen On Door Knobs In Refrigerators And Food Containers The regular
use of Germ-a-Zone is an excellent safety precaution for use in office buildings,
hotels, institutions, by travelers and people using public facilities. Dis-
infects Germ Zones including toilets, liath tubs, telephones, food storage con-
tainers, and other focal spots for disease germs. In sickroom. Germ-a-
Zone kills germs in the air, on furniture, utensils, etc. Protects the family.
* For Travelers. Use Germ-a-Zqne for protection in sleeping rooms and
bathrooms in hotels, on trains, etc.,"
which said statements were false and misleading and served to deceive and mis-
lead prospective purchasers of said product in that said statements purported
and represented that the product, when used as directed, would destroy all germs
on contact, kill all disease germs in the air and on surfaces, disinfect the air or
disinfect the surfaces of toilets, bath tubs, telephones, food-storage containers,
floors, walls, plumbing fixtures, furniture, and the other objects indicated on the
label as claimed; that it could be relied upon to kill pneumococci, streptococci,
staphylococci, and other disease-spreadfng germs, to prevent the spread of all
the disease germs and viruses causing influenza, common colds, sinusitis, scarlet
fever, mumps, boils, pneumonia, or "strep-throat," or to protect the family and-
traveler from infection with all of those germs and viruses as stated; and that
when used as directed it would act as a safeguard against infectious germs in sick-
rooms, bathrooms, sleeping rooms, nurseries, office buildings, institutions, kitchens,
or trains, whereas, in truth and in fact, said product when used as directed would
not destroy all germs on contact, kill all disease germs in the air and on surfaces,
disinfect the air or disinfect the surfaces of toilets, bath tubs, telephones, food-
storage containers, floors, walls, plumbing fixtures, furniture, and the other
objects indicated, as claimed; it could pot be relied upon to kill pneumococci,
streptococci, staphylococci, and other disease-spreading germs, to prevent the
spread of all disease germs and viruses causing influenza, common colds, sinusitis,
scarlet fever, mumps, boils, pneumonia, dr "strep throat," or to protect the family


1976-2015]









674


INSECTICIDE


ACT


quart containers, more or less,


of "Kloro-Kleen,


" at Keokuk, Iowa, alleging that


the product had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 20,


1945, and September 24, 1945, from Springfield, Ill.,


by C,


G. Whitlock Co.


charging that the product was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged that the product was 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


Inert Ingredients 95


while it contained


less than 5 percent sodium hypochlorite and more than 95 percent inert ingre-
dients.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements, "Sodium


Hypochlorite


fectant


* *


by adding one ounc


Inert Ingredients 95%"


"Deodorant Antiseptic and Disin-


Available Chlorine solution of 200 parts per million is prepared
e Kloro-Kleen to two gallons of water" were false and mislead-


ing and would serve to deceive and mislead purchasers of said product in that


said product contained less than 5 percent


sodium hypochlorite, more than 95 per-


cent inert ingredients, and the product when used as directed would not give a
solution containing 200 parts per million of available chlorine or a solution strong


enough to effectively disinfect.
On April 2, 1947, no claimant having
tion and forfeiture was entered, and it


appeared, a default decree of condemna-
vas ordered that the product be destroyed.


INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1976-2015


N. J. No.


Add6 Hygienic Cleaning Powder:
Farm and Home Products Co-


Add~


2007


Kilursect:
Farm and Home Products Co_ 1999


Add6 Kilursect Insecticide Powder:
Farm and Home Products Co- 2005
Add6 Pet Powder:


Farm and Home Products Co_
Add@ Rug Life:
Farm and Home Products Co_


Add4~ Wafer-Cide Contains 15%


DDT:


Farm and Home Products Co_


1996
2008
2006


Armstrong Pynolene:
Oriole Chemical Corp------ 1990


Ced-O-Bag, Real
Extra Odor:


Cedar


Chips


with


Mon-Bolt Manufacturing Co_-
Costello Slayzm Residual Insect Spray
or Paint:.


Dixie


2001


J. S. Costello & Son Brush Co_ 2009
"G-D" Phenol-3-:


Dixie Disinfecting
Doo-Al Fly Spray:


Imperial


Chemical


E Z Bleach ----------
E Z Bleach:


Central City Pickle


Co --


Fleecy White Laundry Bleach:


John Puhl Products
Germ-a-Zone:


Hi-Ta


Knapp-Monarch Co
-20:
Associated Chemist


k. .


------ -


Inc....


-----
-----


1995


1989
1986
1981

2014
1976


Marshall's
Bern


Marshall


Nu-Wa


Insect Spray:
lard Marshall-


Marshall


Sanitary


N. J. No.


Products


Corp-- ...-----------
's Triple Action Roach Pow-


Bernard Marshall--.
Marshall Sanitary
Corp -------
y's Bleach


Products


NiNu-Way Products Co ---.
Ocean Spray Insecticide:
Ocean Coffee Co., Inc- --
Old Nick's Seed Treatment:
Old Nick Seed Treatment Co-


Pine Oil Disinfectant:
Sanco Products Co.,
Pinelo:


3.5.


Inc--... -


Costello & Son Brush Co-


Progress Disinfecting Sure-Klean:


F. Uddo &


Sons -.....


Rainbow Super-Refined Bleach:
Rainbow Chemical Co-n


Roman Cleanser:
Roman Cleanser
Sanitair :


------- -


F & M Laboratories------
Savaday Bleach and Disinfectant:
Barton Chemical Co-------
Sun-X Sterilizer Bleach:


2010
2010

2010
2010
1979
2000
2003
2004
2009
1994
1998
2002
1988
1985


Whitlock Chemieal Co------ 1978


Super Pyro-Cuper, Cuper Dust, Killer-
Cuper, Irish Potato Spray, and New
Pyro-Cuper:


Lawrence A. Brown------ 2011
01le A. Flaat....----------- 2011
P1 .,4.. Bww n... ..a.. n4 nn/H 4


w


. .