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:
AA00008549:00049

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text

/9


N. J., I. A 2016-2040


C2d Noeb 1950


UNITED


STATES DEPARTMENT


OF


AGRICULTURE


Production


and


Marketing


Administration


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


2016-2040


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 (7 U. S. C. 121-134).
JOHN I. THOMPSON,
Assistant Administrator,
Production and Marketing Administration.
WASHINGTON, D. C., August 4, 1950.


2016. Misbranding of "Tote." U. S. v. Speed Chemical Company, a corporation.
Plea of guilty. Fine $300. (I. & F. No. 2394. I. D. Nos. 5539 and 5590.)
Analysis of a sample of "Tote" showed that the product consisted of mineral
oil, an organic thiocyanate, phenols, and nitrobenzene. Analysis of a second
sample of "Tote" showed that the product consisted of mineral oil, small amounts
of phenols, and an organic thiocyanate. The first sample, when tested against
flies in the Peet-Grady chamber, gave an average kill of 2 percent and an
average knock-down of 46 percent. Under identical conditions the official test
insecticide gave an average kill of 37 percent and an average knock-down of
84 percent. Both samples were ineffective against roaches.
On June 4, 1946, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District
Court an information against Speed Chemical Co., a corporation, alleging ship-
ments in interstate commerce, on or about June 28, 1944, and February 8, 1945,
from Brooklyn, N. Y., into the State of New Jersey, of quantities of "Tote,"
and charging that the product was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning


of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to
in the shipment of June 28,
Kills Flies Roaches
a killer of household insects
doors should be closed, begin
spray towards the ceiling an
for a few minutes, this will


be misbranded in that
1944, stated in part:
* Guaranteed
For *
at farthest end of th
d cover every part of
kill mosquitoes and


the labels'affixed to the cans
(1) "Tote Double Strength
to kill insects it is
* Flies All windows and


te room away
Sthe room, k
flies and the


fro
eep
od


others from entering For Roaches Spray freely into all
/^^/^TTnn/rt v 4 Tnd3 tin/ la/nnAi l^n- n^T A* n3 r vi,.- ..r~n J~l b nra1- A- 4^ n, n// -Kr^TT c'ln^T^r n I 4-4 ra


)m the door,
door closed
or will keep
cracks and
flI rt r*cl*- r f' W flf 1


!








676


INSECTICIDE


ACT [N. ., I. F.i
ACT [N. J..I.PF.


doors should be closed, begin at farthest end of the room away from the door,


spray towards the ceiling and cover
for a few minutes, this will kill all m


others
cracks
times
and m
roache
double


from entering ," and
and crevices of base board, beh
I week. Kills Flies
leading as the product, when u
i, its odor would not keep out
strength household insecticide,


very part of the room, keep door closed
(quitoes and flies, and the odor will keep
(3) "For Roaches Spray freely into all
ind sink, wash tub and ice box, several
Roaches," which statements were false
sed as directed, would not kill flies and
all mosquitoes and flies, it was not a
nor was it by far the best obtainable


preparation for instantly killing mosquitoes, flies, bed bugs, roaches, and other
insects and their eggs, nor would it destroy all household insects.
On June 24, 1946, a plea of guilty was entered and on July 3, 1946, a fine of
$300 was imposed.
2017. Adulteration and misbranding of "Nu-Way's Bleach." U. S. v. 246 one-half
gallon containers, 80 one-gallon containers, and 2,048 quart containers,
more or less, of "Nu-Way's Bleach." Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2403. I. D. No. 13623.)
Examination of samples of "Nu-Way's Bleach" showed that the product was
a sodium hypochlorite solution and contained 4.20 percent of sodium hypo-
chlorite.
On April 20, 1946, the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
District Court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 246 one-half gallon
containers, 80 one-gallon containers, and 2,048 quart containers, more or less,
of "Nu-Way's Bleach," at Carthage, Mo., alleging that the product had been
shipped in interstate commerce on or about September 26, 1945, by the Nu-Way
Products Co., from Bristow, Okla., and charging that the product was an adulter-
ated 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 Ingredients: Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by Wt. Inert
Ingredients 94.75% by Wt.," whereas the product contained less than 5.25 per-
cent of sodium hypochlorite by weight and more than 94.75 percent inert in-
gredients by weight.
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 affixed to the containers of the product, were false and
misleading and served to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the product
contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite by weight and more than
94.75 percent inert ingredients by weight.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that the state-
ments, "Nu-Way's Bleach Disinfects As a Disin-
fectant Add 1 oz. bleach for each 4 gallons cold water to prepare disinfecting
solution 100 parts per million available chlorine," borne on the labels affixed
to the containers of the product, were false and misleading and served to deceive
and mislead the purchaser since the product did not give a disinfecting solution
containing 100 parts per million available chlorine when diluted as directed.
On June 6, 1946, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.








2016-2040]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


677


Court an information against R. M. Hollingshead
alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or abou
ber 5, 1945, and January 16, 1946, of quantities of a
Whiz Pine Oil Disinfectant" from Camden, N. J., to
D. C., and Scranton, Pa., respectively, and shipment
and December 5, 1945, of quantities of a product kn
infectant No. 500" from Camden, N. J., to Baltimore,


Corporation, a corporation,
t September 6, 1945, Decem-
product known as "No. 600
Scranton, Pa., Washington,
on or about August 3, 1945,
own as "Whiz Pine Oil Dis-
Md., and Washington, D. C.,


respectively. The products were allegedly adulterated and misbranded fungicides
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
In count one relating to the September 6, 1945, shipment of "No. 600 Whiz
Pine Oil Disinfectant", count six relating to the December 5, 1945, shipment of
said product, and count eight relating to the January 16, 1946, shipment of said
product, it was alleged that the product was adulterated in that an inert sub-
stance (water) had been substituted in part for the pine oil disinfectant claimed
to be present.
In count two relating to the September 6, 1945, shipment of "No. 600 Whiz
Pine Oil Disinfectant" it was alleged that the product was misbranded in that
the labels affixed'to the containers of the product stated in part "Pine Oil Disin-
fectant," whereas the product was not wholly a pine oil disinfectant but con-
sisted of a mixture of pine oil disinfectant and water. The product was further
alleged to be misbranded in that it 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 percentage amount of said inert


A-v


ingredient stated
and percentage
properties and th
In count three
Disinfectant No.
another substance
ant claimed to be


I


on the label nor
amount of each
e total percentage


a
did the label bear a statement of the name
ingredient having fungicidal (bactericidal)
of inert ingredients.


relating th the August 3, 1945, shipment of "Whiz Pine Oil
500" it was alleged that the product was adulterated in that
e (water) had been substituted in part for the pine oil disinfect-
present.


In count four relating to the August 3, 1945, shipment of "Whiz Pine Oil Dis-
infectant No. 500" it was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the
labels affixed to the containers of the product stated, in part, "Pine Oil Disinfect-
ant" and "128 Fl. Ozs. Litros 3.785," whereas said product was a mixture of


pine oil disinfectant and water
than 128 fluid ounces and less
leged to be misbranded in that
and glycerine) which would no
teria) and the product did not
inert ingredients stated on the
name and percentage amount of
properties and the total percent
In count five relating to the


Disinfectant No.


500" it was a.


and the net contents of the containers was less


than 3.785 liters. Said product was further al-
it consisted partially of inert substances (water
t prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bac-
have the name and percentage of each of said
label, nor did the label bear a statement of the
each ingredient having fungicidal (bactericidal)
ige of inert ingredients.
December 5, 1945, shipment of "Whiz Pine Oil
alleged that the product was misbranded in that


the labels affixed to the containers of the product stated in part "128 Fl. Ozs.
Litros 3.785," whereas the net contents of the containers was less than 128 fluid
ounces and less than 3.785 liters.
In count seven relating to the December 5, 1945, shipment of "No. 600 Whiz


Pine Oil Disinfectant" and in count nine
shipment of said product, it was alleged th
that the labels affixed to the containers of
Oil Disinfectant" and "128 Fl. Ozs. Litros


relating to the January 16,
at the product was misbrande
the product stated, in part, "
3.785," whereas said product


[946,
d in
Pine
was








678


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


2019.


Adulteration and misbranding of "Superior-Ready to Spray DDT." U. S.
v. Louis Goldman, Justin D. Goldman, and Alvin I. Goldman, individuals,
operating as copartners under the name of Superior Paint & Varnish
Works. Case nolle pressed as to defendant Alvin I. Goldman. Plea of
guilty as to Louis Goldman and Justin D. Goldman. Fine $100. (I. & F.
No. 2415. I. D. Nos. 11975 and 12863.)


Examination of two
that they consisted, r
3.4 percent and 3.9 pe
and 26.9 percent of min
On May 2, 1947, th
Illinois, acting upon a r
in the District Court a
Goldman, individuals, o
& Varnish Works, alleg
ber 14, and September
consignments containing
which was an adultery


samples (
respectively,


"Superior-Ready
f 72.4 percent an


recent of dichloro dipi
leral oil, emulsifier, an
e United States Attor
report by the Secretary
against Louis Goldman
operatingg as copartners
ing shipment in interest
18, 1945, from Chicago
g a product known as


ated and


the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in count


strength or purity fell
was sold, since it was
"Inert Ingredients 95)
percent of pure techno
In count two of th<
branded in that the sta
tains Pure Technical
"Superior-Ready to


Below
labeled
% by V
cal DDT
e inform


Spray


DDT"


percent


ienyl trichloroethane, 24.2
d perfume.
'ney for the Northern Di


of Agriculture, filed an info
, Justin D. Goldman, and
under the name of Superi
:ate commerce, on or about
, Ill., to Des Moines, Iowa
"Superior-Ready to Spra


misbranded insecticide


one that


the product


was


within


showed
water,
percent


strict


)rmation
Alvin I.
or Paint
Septem-
-, of two
y DDT"


the meaning


adulterated


in that


the professed standard or quality under which it
I "Contains pure technical DDT 5% by Wt." and
Vt.," whereas the product contained less than 5
Sby weight.


nation


tements: (1)
DDT 5% by
Spray DDT


spray is effective against flies *
water bugs, spiders, termites *
a water emulsion solution and will
with water as low as 11/% solution
fine atomized spray for best result
trainers of said product were false
and mislead the purchaser of said


it was alleged that the product was
"Superior-Ready to Spray DDT," (2)
Weight. Inert Ingredients 95%," anm
* mPh;I" Qnli, fnn nrhnn o nnl rl


LflI~ ~J1tLLJAJ.L1 VV 11~St1 aIJpLLCtJ.


* ants, moths, bed bugs, roaches
* etc. This product is n
still be very effective if desired t
for majority of insects. Important
s," borne on the labels affixed to
and misleading and would serve t
product in that the product was


mis-
"Con-
d (3)
as a
* *


aade with
Lo reduce
t to use a
the con-
o deceive
not DDT


(dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane), the product contained less than 5 percent
pure technical dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane by weight, and the product
when used as directed would not control flies, ants, moths, bedbugs, roaches,
water bugs, spiders, termites, and all insects represented by the abbreviation
"etc."


In count three of the
branded in that the pr
which did not prevent,
to the jugs containing
amount of such inert
statement of the name
cidal properties and the


information the product was alleged to be further mis-
oduct consisted partially of an inert substance (water)
destroy, repel, or mitigate insects and the labels affixed


said product did not
ingredient stated their
and percentage amount
total percentage of ine


On October 28, 1947, upon the motion of the
was nolle pressed as to the defendant Alvin I


have the name and percentage
eon, nor did said labels bear a
of each ingredient having insecti-
rt ingredients.
United States Attorney, the case
:. Goldman. Pleas of guilty were


entered as to defendants Louis Goldman and Justin D. Goldman, and the Court
imposed a fine of $100 with costs.


!


[







2016-2040]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


679


from St. Louis, Mo., by the Rocket Products Corp., and charging that the product
was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecti-
cide 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 the
product was labeled "Contains 5% DDT, 2% Pyrethrum, *," whereas
said product contained less than 5 percent DDT and less than 2 percent pyrethrum'.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements, (1)
"With D-D-T D-D-T, Kills Roaches, Mosquitoes, Ants, Fleas, Bed-
bugs, Water Bugs, Etc." and (2) "contains 5% D-D-T, 2% Pyrethrum. *,"
borne on the labels affixed to the containers in which said product was packed,
were false and misleading in that the letters "D-D-T" in each case standing out
in bold, conspicuous type misled the purchasers into believing that the product
consisted chiefly of DDT, or dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane as that name
implies, and such statements represented that the product would kill all insects
which may be included under the abbreviation "Etc." and that the product con-
tained less than 5 percent DDT, "dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane," and not
less than 2 percent "pyrethrum," whereas the product did not consist chiefly
of DDT, "dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane," would not kill all the insects that
may be included in the abbreviation "Etc." and did not contain 5 percent DDT
and 2 percent pyrethrum.
On February 6, 1947, no claimant having appeared, decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and the product was ordered destroyed.

2021. Adulteration and misbranding of "Lon-Dre' Bleach." U. S. v. 837 quart
containers, more or less, of "Lon-Dre' Bleach." Default decree of con-
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2424. I. D. No.
13130.)
Examination of samples of "Lon-Dre' Bleach" showed that the product was a
sodium hypochlorite solution and contained 4.45 percent of sodium hypochlorite.
On September 4, 1946, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,


acting upon
libel praying
of "Lon-Dre
shipped in i
April 19, 19
adulterated
Act of 1910.


a report by the Secretary of
Seizure and condemnation
' Bleach" at Washington, I
interstate commerce by the
46, from Baltimore, Md.,
and misbranded fungicide


* Agriculture, filed in the District Court a
a of 837 quart containers, more or less,
). C., alleging that the product had been
Chlorinated Products Co., on or about
and charging that the product was an
within the meaning of the Insecticide


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
94.75%,'
chlorite
It wa
"Active
borne onr
leading


"Active
' whereas
and more
s alleged
Ingrediel
Sthe labe
and tend<


tained less


than 5


Ingredient


Sodium


Hypochlorite)


5.25%


the product contained less than 5.25 percent
than 94.75 percent of inert ingredients.
that the product was misbranded in that
t (Sodium Hypochlorite) 5.2p% Inert Ingr
s affixed to the containers of the product, we
i to deceive and. mislead the purchaser since
i.25 percent sodium hypochlorite and more tl


Inert


Ingredients


of sodium hypo-


the statements:
edients 94.75%,"
re false and mis-
the product con-
an- 94.75 percent


inert ingredients.
On December 10, 1946, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemna-
tion and forfeiturewas entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


VI







680


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 the
product was labeled "Active Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 4% by Wt. Inert
Ingredients 96% by Wt.," whereas the product contained less than 4 percent
sodium hypochlorite by weight and more than 96 percent inert ingredients by
weight.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements: "Active
Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 4% by Wt. Inert Ingredients 96% by Wt.,"
borne on the labels affixed to the containers of the product, were false and mis-
leading and would serve to deceive and mislead the purchaser since the said
product contained less than 4 percent of sodium hypochlorite by weight and more
than 96 percent of inert ingredients by weight.
On January 9, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be turned over to
certain enumerated charitable institutions.
2023. Adulteration and misbranding of "Cenco Vera Pine Oil Disinfectant."
U. S. v. Mike Goldberg, trading as the Central Chemical Company. Plea
of guilty. Fine $250. (I. & F. No. 2441. I. D. No. 13714.)


An examination of a sample of "Cenco Vera Pine Oil Disini
that it consisted of 61.7 percent pine oil, 26.5 percent water, 1.6
oxide, and 10.2 percent fatty anhydride.
On September 17, 1947, the United States Attorney for the N
of Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
trict Court an information against Mike Goldberg, trading as th4
ical Company, alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or
1946, of a quantity of a product known as "Cenco Vera Pine 0
from Dallas, Tex., to Stuttgart, Ark. The product was alleged t
ated and a misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the
of 1910.
In count one, the product was alleged to be adulterated in that


fectant" showed
percent sodium

northern District
filed in the Dis-
e Central Chem-
ibout March 19,
il Disinfectant"
o be an adulter-
Insecticide Act


water had been


substituted in part for the article "Cenco Vera Pine Oil Disinfectant," and the
product's strength and purity therefore fell below the professed standard or
quality under which it was sold.
In count two, said product was alleged to be misbranded in that it 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 per-
centage amount of such inert ingredient stated on the label, nor did the label
bear a statement of the name and percentage amount of each and every
ingredient having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties and the total percentage
of inert ingredients.
In count three, said product was further alleged to be misbranded in that the
label affixed to the drum containing said product stated, in part, "Pine Oil
Disinfectant" and "The Central Chemical Company certifies that this disinfectant
conforms to all requirements of the standard adopted by the National Associa-
tion of Insecticide and Disinfectant Manufacturers, Inc., and recorded as Com-
mercial Standard CS-69-38 by the National Bureau of Standards of the United
States Department of Commerce," whereas said product did not conform to the
requirements of the standards specified.
On February 24, 1948, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, and the Court
imposed a fine of $250.







2016-2040]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


681


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 percent by weight, Inert Ingredients 94.75
percent-by weight," whereas it contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypo-
chlorite by weight and more than 94.75 percent indrt ingredients by weight.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements, "Sodium
Hypochlorite 5.25 percent-by weight, Inert Ingredients 94.75 percent-by weight"
and "Disinfectant Available chlorine solution of 200 parts per million
is prepared by adding 1 ounce Chloro-San to 2 gallons of water," borne on the
labels affixed to the containers of the product, were false and misleading and
would serve to deceive and mislead purchasers of said product, as said product
contained less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite by weight, more than 94.75
percent inert ingredients by weight, and 1 ounce of said product of the com-
position found when added to 2 gallons of water would not make a solution
containing 200 parts per million of available chlorine or a solution strong enough
to give efficient disinfection.
On April 5, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.

2025. Adulteration and misbranding of "Hermox Bleach." U. S. v. 2,394 quart
containers, more or less, of "Hermox Bleach." Default decree of con-
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2445. I. D. No.
14160.)


Examination of "Hermox Bleach"
sodium hypochlorite than was stated
On November 19, 1946, the Unite
of Louisiana, acting upon a report I
District Court a libel praying seiz


showed that it contained 32.95 percent
on the label.
d States Attorney for the Eastern Dis
by the Secretaiy of Agriculture, filed in
ure and condemnation of 2,394 quart


tainers, more or less, of "Hermox Bleach," at Ba
the product had been shipped in interstate comme
1946, from Chicago, Ill., and charging that the pro
misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the
shipment was made by Fred Herman & Sons.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated


fell beloM
labeled
94.75%,"
and more
It was


Sthe professed standard or q
"Active Ingredient: Sodiumn
whereas it contained less
than 94.75 percent inert ingr
alleged that the product was


less


trict
the
con-


Lton Rouge, La., alleging that
rce, on or about February 21,
)duct was an adulterated and
Insecticide Act of 1910. The
in that its strength or purity


quality under which it was sold
SHypochlorite 5.25%-Inert
than 5.25 percent of sodium
edients.
misbranded in that the state


since it was
Ingredients
hypochlorite


ents,


"Active


Ingredient: Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25%---Inert Ingredients 94.75%" and "Dis-
infects-Germicide-Deodorizes Disinfecting Solution for dairies, res-
taurants, soda fountains, hospitals, institutions, hotels, taverns, etc. After
cleansing, use solution containing 200 parts available chlorine per million-add
1I/ oz. hermox to each gal. of water," borne on the labels affixed to the containers
in which the product was packed, were false and misleading and tended to de-
ceive and mislead prospective purchasers since said product contained less than
5.25 percent of sodium hypochlorite and more than 94.75 percent of inert in-
gredients, 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 the places and articles listed.
On May 6, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.







682


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


misbranded fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The
shipment was made by the Central City Pickle Co. of Peoria, Ill.
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 weight. Inert
Ingredients 94.75% by weight," whereas it contained less than 5.25 percent of
sodium hypochlorite by weight and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients,
by weight.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements, (1)
"Active Ingredients: Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25% by weight-Inert Ingredients
94.75% by weight" and (2) "Disinfects AS A DISINFECTANT:
Thoroughly clean article. Immerse in a dilution containing 1 to 2 tablespoon-
fuls Bleach to each gallon of water. *," borne on the labels affixed to
the containers, were false and misleading and served to deceive and mislead
prospective purchasers since said product contained less than 5.25 percent sodium
hypochlorite by weight, and more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients, by weight;
and one tablespoonful of "Four BBBB Bleach" of the composition found would
not give a solution strong enough to give effective disinfection.
On April 2, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.

2027. Adulteration and misbranding of "No-Me Brand Household Bleach." U. S.
v. Lucido Brothers Grocery Company, a corporation. Plea of nolo con-
tendere. Fine $100 on each of four counts. (I. & F. No. 2450. I. D. Nos.
12008 and 13752.)
Examination of two samples of "No-Me Brand Household Bleach" showed that
they contained 22.7 percent and 41.33 percent less sodium hypochlorite than was


stated on th
On January
Missouri, act
trict Court a
tion, alleging
and June 10


? labels.
'y 17, 1947,
fing upon a
6n informati
; shipments
, 1946, from


the United States Attorney for the Eastern
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
on against the Lucido Brothers Grocery Co.,
in interstate commerce, on or about Septem
St. Louis, Mo., to Alton, Ill., of quantities


District of
in the Dis-
, a corpora-
ber 4, 1945,
of "No-Me


Brand Household Bleach" which was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


It was alleged that
Ingredients (Sodium
Wt.," borne on the lab
false and misleading
product contained les
more than 94.75 perce
It was alleged that


fell below the professed
labeled "Active Ingredie
ients 94.75% By Wt.,"
sodium hypochlorite by
On February 7, 1947,


the product was misbranded ii
Hypochlorite) 5.25% By Wt.,
'els of the containers in which
and tended to deceive and mi
s than 5.25 percent of sodium


n that the statements, "Active
Inert Ingredients 94.75% By
the product was packed, were
slead the purchaser since the
Shypochlorite by weight, and


inert ingredients by weight.
.e product was adulterated in that its
standard or quality under which it wa
nts (Sodium Hypochlorite) 5.25% By
whereas the product contained less
weight and more than 94.75 percent ii
the defendant corporation entered a


strength or purity
s sold since it was
Wt., Inert Ingred-
than 5.25 percent
aert ingredients.
plea of nolo con-


tender and was fined $100 on each of four counts.

2028. Adulteration and misbranding of "Clorton Supersparkle." U. S. v. Ben
Van Etten, doing business under the style and trade name of Clorton
Chemical Company. Plea of guilty. Fine $50. (I. & F. No. 2453. I. D.







2016-2040]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


683


prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria), and the label affixed to the
jugs containing the product did not have the name and percentage amount of
such inert ingredient stated thereon, nor did said label bear a statement of the
name and percentage amount of each ingredient having fungicidal (bactericidal)
properties and the total percentage of inert ingredients.
In count two of the information said product was alleged to be misbranded in
that the statements, "A sensational disinfecting RINSE for glass-and china-
ware Glassware-Directions For Two Tanks Add one ounce
(or three tablespoons) of Super Sparkle to every five gallons of water used.
* Directions For One Tank Glasses can be washed and rinsed in one
operation in one tank containing SUPER SPARKLE (1 ounce to 5 gallons of
water) with or without Chlorine. For Hard Water Areas Add one
ounce SUPER SPARKLE for each two gallons.of water; mix well. This strength
solution is recommended by many Health Depts. for disinfecting surfaces which
have been thoroughly cleansed in restaurants, taverns, soda fountains, dairies,
etc.," borne on the labels affixed to the jugs containing said product, were false
and misleading and would serve to deceive and mislead purchasers in that said
product was not a disinfectant rinse when used as directed.
On April 11, 1947, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, and the Court imposed
a fine of $50.
2029. Misbranding of "Safeway 10% D. D. T. Insecticide Powder." U. S. v. Safe-
way Chemical Company. Plea of guilty. Fine $200 and $25 costs. (I. &
F. No. 2455. I. D. Nos. 11124 and 12940.)


Examination of two samples of "Safewa
showed them to be 17 percent and 7.5 percent
On March 11, 1947, the United States A
Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretar
Court an information against the Safeway
land, Ohio, alleging shipments in interstate
and October 4, 1946, from Cleveland, Ohi
N. Y., of quantities of "Safeway 10% D. D
misbranded insecticide within the meaning
The product was alleged to be misbrani


y 10% D. D. T. Insecticide Powder"
Lt short weight.
attorney for the Northern District of
y of Agriculture, filed in the District
r Chemical Co., a corporation, Cleve-
commerce on or about April 12, 1946,
o, to Baltimore, Md., and Brooklyn,
. T. Insecticide Powder" which was a
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
ded in that the labels affixed to the


cartons containing said product stated, in part, "contents 2 oz.," which statement
was false and misleading and would serve to deceive and mislead purchasers of
said product in that the net content of the cartons was less than 2 ounces.
On March 24, 1947, a plea of guilty was entered and the defendant was fined
$100 on each of two counts, together with costs of $25.


Adulteration and
containers, 894
more or less, o
forfeiture, and
No. 2457. I. D.


misbranding of "Roman Cleanser." U. S. v. 2,088 quart
one-half gallon containers, and 432 quart containers,
f "Roman Cleanser." Consent decree of condemnation,
destruction of product and release of containers. (I. & F.
Nos. 14055, 14056, and 14057.)


Examination of samples of "Roman Cleanser" showed that it was a sodium
hypochlorite solution and that the one-half gallon containers contained 3.02 per-
cent sodium hypochlorite, and the quart containers contained 2.91 percent and
4.58 percent sodium hypochlorite.
On March 5, 1947, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of


Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
Court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 2,088 quart con
a a I^ Ai~ n.a11 a- .3-j -^ Ar 0c -.__- _-JC *_ ^ ^ ^_ n --


the District
tainers, 894


2030.







684


INSECTICIDE


ACT [N. J., I. F.


adding one part Roman Cleanseri
(Other dilutions proportionate),'
which said product was packed,


deceive and
percent sodi
one part of
solution con


mislead the purcha
um hypochlorite and
said product added i
taining 500 parts per


* to 99 parts water approx. %1 cup to 3 gallons.
' borne on the labels affixed to the containers in
were false and misleading and would serve to
ser since the product contained less than 5.25
more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients and
:o 99 parts of water did not give a disinfecting
million of available chlorine.


On July 11, 1947, the Roman Cleanser Co., a corporation, having appeared as
claimant, a consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered and it
was ordered that the product be destroyed and that the containers in which the
product was packed should be returned to the Roman Cleanser Co.
2031. Adulteration and misbranding of "White Monday." U. S. v. 309 one-half
gallon containers and 318 quart containers, more or less, of "White Mon-
day." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
(I. & F. No. 2459. I. D. Nos. 14060 and 14061.)
Examination of two samples of "White Monday" showed that the product was
a sodium hypochlorite solution, and contained 3.79 percent and 3.56 percent of
sodium hypochlorite.
On March 19, 1947, the United States Attorney for the Northern'District of
Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District
Court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 309 one-half gallon containers
and 318 quart containers, more or less, of "White Monday" at Marion, Ind.,
alleging that the product had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about
February 15, 1946, from Toledo, Ohio, by the St. Clair Manufacturing Co., 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 the
product was labeled "Active Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 4.25%", "Inert In-
gredients 95.75%," whereas the product contained less than 4.25 percent of sodium
hypochlorite and more than 95.75 percent inert ingredients.


It
"Act
born
were
since
than
Onr
and


was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements,
ive Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 4.25%," "Inert Ingredients 95.75%,"
e on the labels affixed to the containers in which said product was packed,
false and misleading and would serve to deceive and mislead the purchaser
the product contained less than 4.25 percent sodium hypochlorite and more
95.75 percent inert ingredients.
May 12, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


2032. Adulteration and misbranding of "Sno-White Laundry Bleach."
2,994 quart containers, more or less, of "Sno-White Laundry
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
No. 2472. I. D. No. 15856.)


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


Examination of samples of "Sno-White Laundry Bleach" showed that it was
a sodium hypochlorite solution, and contained 3.92 percent of sodium hypochlorite.
On July 25, 1947, the United States Attorney for the District of North Dakota,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 2,994 quart containers, more or less,
of "Sno-White Laundry Bleach" at Fargo, N. Dak., alleging that the product
had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about August 5, 1946, from







2016-2040]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


685


was not a sterilizing agent and would not sterilize the surfaces of the articles
and places mentioned on the label when used as directed.
On October 27, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
2033. Adulteration and misbranding of "Lure-Kill-Wafers." U. S. v. 6,282 boxes,
more or less, of "Lure-Kill-Wafers." Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2485. I. D. No. 15678.)


On October 21, 1947, the
acting upon a report by thi
a libel praying seizure and
Kill-Wafers" at Baltimore
interstate commerce on or
ington, D. C., by the Farm
was an adulterated and mis
tide Act of 1910.
It was alleged that the


fell below the
inents, "ACTI
15%, INERT
-to the boxes
contained not
.and not more
less than 15


United States
e Secretary of
condemnation
, Md., alleging
about July 29
& Home Prodh
branded insect


Attorney for the District of Maryland,
Agriculture, filed in the District Court
of 6,282 boxes, more or less, of "Lure-
that the product had been shipped in
), 1946, and April 2, 1947, from Wash-
ucts Co., and charging that the product
icide within the meaning of the Insecti-


product was adulterated in that its strength or purity


professed standard or quality under which it was sold as the state-
VE INGREDIENTS: Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (D. D. T.)
INGREDIENTS: 85%, Total 100%," borne on the labels affixed
in which said product was packed, purported that said product
less than 15 percent dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (D. D. T.),
than 85 percent inert ingredients, whereas said product contained
percent dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (D. D. T.), and more


than 85 percent inert ingredients.
Said product was alleged to be mistbranded in that the statements,


KILL-WAFERS Contains 15%
Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
85%, Total 100%," and (2) "LUR
Roaches, Flies, Ants, Mosquitoes,
Simply distribute the Discs on ki
stove, or wherever insects may cr
boxes in which the product was


DDT
(D. ]


* *


D. T.)


E-KILL-WAFERS
and Silverfish :
tchen shelves, wind
awl or fly," borne 01
packed, were false


, ACTIVE
5%. INERT


(1) "LURE-


INGREDIENT
INGREDIENT


*i Lures a
* Directions f
1w frames, under
i the labels affixe
and misleading


nd
Eor
si
d t
as


product contained less than 15 percent of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
more than 85 percent inert ingredients, and the product when used as dir
would not lure the insects specified and would not kill roaches, flies,


Kills
Use:
ik or
o the
said
, and
ected
ants,


mosquitoes, and silverfish.
On December 10, 1947, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
2034. Adulteration and misbranding of "Rug Glo." U. S. v. 8,736 eight-ounce
packages, more or less, of "Rug Glo." Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2486. I. D. No. 15677.)
On October 24, 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 praying seizure and condemnation of 8,736 eight-ounce packages, more
or less, of "Rug Glo" at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the product had been shipped
in interstate commerce by the Farm & Home Products Co. on or about August 29,
1947, from Washington, D. C., and charging that the product was an adulterated
and misbranded insecticide 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 as the state-
nnnJn i4i***5 crrr TnTnTITm A /rmTxT7Tf TANTfTflfTlITW TrsiNcm f n-tl..


:)







686


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


removed.


Does not have to remain on rug for hour or overnight.


It does not


evaporate or lose its qualities on exposure to air. One eight-ounce can of RUG
GLO should last six 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 mothproof. Can be removed from rug either by carpet
sweeper, broom or vacuum cleaner. Directions for using RUG GLO
Sprinkle light film of powder over entire rug or carpet. Scrub in with bristle


brush. Brush out wit
the labels affixed to th
and misleading as the
product contained less
and more than 95 per
directed would not kill
proof rugs and carpets.
On December 10, 194'


h
e
i


broom, carpet sweeper or vacuum cleaner,
packages in which the product was packed,
iet weight of said product was less than 8 o


" borne on
were false
unces, said


than 5 percent dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT)
cent inert ingredients, and said product when used as
all insects other than those specified and would not moth-

i, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation


and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered


that the product be destroyed.


2035. Adulteration and misbranding of "Rug Glo." U. S. v. 1,341 eight-ounce
packages, more or less, of "Rug Glo." Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2487. I. D. No. 14539.)
On October 24, 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 praying seizure and condemnation of 1,341 eight-ounce packages, more
or less, of "Rug Glo" at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the product had been shipped
by the Farm and Home Products Company in interstate commerce, on or about
November 26, 1946, from Washington, D. C., and charging that the product was
an adulterated and misbranded insecticide 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 as the


:14
I


statements,
(DDT) 5%,
affixed to tl
product con
(DDT), and
contained l
more than 9
It was al


(1) "ACTIVE
INERT INGR
Moth-Proofing
and other inse
cleans at the
removed. Do<
evaporate or l
Gln ahniiill lc


"ACTIVE INGREDIENTS: Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
INERT INGREDIENTS: 95%, .. 100%," borne on the labels
e packages in which the product was packed, purported that the
gained not less than 5 percent dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane


I not more
ess than 5
5 percent ir
leged that


I
E)


than 95 percent inert ingredients, whereas said product
percent dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), and
iert ingredients.
the product was misbranded in that the statements:


INGREDIENTS
DIENTS 95%,


Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), 5%,
100%," and (2) "Rug Glo for *


Rugs and Carpets kills moths, carpet beetles, silverfish,
cts. Rug Glo is the only product on market that moth proofs and
same time. Can be entirely spread on rug or carpet and then
es not have to remain on rug for hour or overnight. It does not
ose its qualities on exposure to air. One eight-ounce can of Rug
t aiv mnrit-ha nn monnnthlr oannSnmolnnc rnrn on 0nt V1' 10i'ns *


vtA L'.3 3fl'jm/-A A C~tJ La o L I JL'J. A^
If put on floor under
and stored will keep it
sweeper, broom or va
Sprinkle light film of j
brush. Brush out with


AALt, A pI- JtlVt iJlA*y lalJ-
rug will moth proof
moth-proof. Can be
cuum cleaner. *
powder over entire ru
Sbroom, carpet sweep


~LL~aLI~tfl~ '11.1 a u


e
14
E


a L~4 I t15.


the rug or carpet.
removed from rug e
* Directions for
g or carpet. Scrub
*r or vacuum cleaner


If put
either by
using R
in with
," borne


on rug
carpet
ug Glo
bristle
on the


labels affixed to the packages in which the product was packed, were false and
ny ln A! a<1/tfi/ i/ n ci e A~^/ n^rrnf n-^^-/4 nnnd-n 4- nnA- 1 nc






2016-2040]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


687


On March 29, 1948, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Ohio, acting upozi a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District
Court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 564 quart bottles, more or less,
of "Moon-Shine Washing Fluid," at Barnesville, Ohio, alleging that the product
had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 22, 1946, by the
Moon-Shine Chemical Company from Pittsburgh, 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 in that
the labels affixed to the bottles in which the product was packed, stated, in part:


"INGREDIENTS
HYPOCHLORITE
Available Chlorine
contained not less
more than 94.75 pe
was present in an
product contained


WHEN BOTTLED: ACTIVE INGREDIENTS SODIUM
5.25% BY WT. INERT INGREDIENTS 94.75% BY WT.
5.25% by wt." which statements represented that the product
than 5.25 percent of sodium hypochlorite by weight, and not
recent inert ingredients by weight, and that available chlorine
amount not less than 5.25 percent by weight, whereas the


than 5.25 percent


sodium hypochlorite


by weight, and


more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients by weight, and less than 5.25 percent
available chlorine by weight.
On May 12, 1948, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and the product was ordered to be destroyed.


Misbranding of "Crown Odorless Insect Spray";
branding of "Crown Insecticide Contains 5% D
misbranding of "Crown Roach Powder." U. S. v.
L. David, Bernard R. Freudenthal, and Elsa L. F
doing business as copartners under the style and
cal Service of Baltimore." Plea of guilty. Fine
I. D. Nos. 15609, 15610, and 15611.)


adulteration and mis-
DT"; adulteration and
Harry W. David, Agnes
reudenthal, individuals,
trade name of "Chemi-
$100. (I. & F. No. 2489.


An examination of a sample of "Crown Odorless Insect Spray" showed that the
product consisted of 0.04 percent dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) and
0.12 percent pyrethrins in a mineral oil base. An examination of a sample of
"Crown Insecticide Contains 5% DDT" showed that this product contained 1.68.
percent dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) in a mineral oil base. An
examination of "Crown Roach Powder" showed that this product contained 4.74
percent dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, 76.83 percent sodium fluoride, an
organic matter carrying pyrethrins, an organic chloride, a dye, and a small
amount of sesame oil.
On August 24, 1948, the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court
an information against Harry W. David, Agnes L. David, Bernard R. Freuden-
thal, and Elsa L. Freudenthal, individuals, doing business as copartners under
the style and trade name of "Chemical Service of Baltimore," alleging shipment
in interstate commerce on or about March 3, March 27, and April 10, 1947, from
Baltimore, Md., to Washington, D. C., of three products known as "Crown Odor-


less Insect
Contains 5'
misbranded
In count
was alleged


Spray" which was a misbranded insecticide and "Crown Insecticide
% DDT" and "Crown Roach Powder" which were adulterated and
insecticides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
one of the information the product "Crown Odorless Insect Spray"


1


be misbranded in that the labels affixed to the containers in which


the product was packed stated, in part: "Crown Odorless Insect Spray *
l~a nra 4fVT a0 'm'ron-vnI-Vlrn-nr A nil 4!n,. cmn'~o n n'j^ an- n-ronin c^/^nt/nnn 41 anne, nira t netn nf--H i^n rl^nn


2037.







688


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


In count three the product "Crown Insecticide Contains 5%
to be misbranded in that the labels affixed to the containers in
was packed stated, in part: "Crown Insecticide AA
* This spray is recommended for spraying on walls,
other large areas. It is a residual spray
against Ants Roaches, Waterbugs *


DDT" was alleged
vhich said product
Grade Insecticide
screens, floors, or
." "It is effective
* Spray or paint


the solution over entire infected area. It gives immediate knockdown and 100%
kill. On drying, a residue of DDT will be left on the surface giving a prolonged
residual action," which said statements were false and misleading as the product
was not a Grade AA' fly spray and when used as directed would not give a
prolonged residual action against ants, roaches, and water bugs.
In count four the product "Crown Roach Powder" was alleged to be adulter-
ated in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality
under which it was sold as the label affixed to the containers in which said
product was packed stated, in part: "(Containing 10% DDT.) Active Ingredi-


ents 13.38%. Dichloro diphen.
bons 3.00%. Sesamin Concent
86.62%," whereas said produce
trichloroethane (DDT).
In count five the product "Cro
in that the labels affixed to tl
stated, in part: "(Containing 1
diphenyl trichloroethane 10.0
Concentrate .30%. Pyrethrins.
which statements were false ai
correct "ingredient statement"
and the product also contained


yl trichloroethane 10.0%. Petroleums hydrocar-
rate .30%. Pyrethrins .08%. Inert Ingredients
t did not contain 10 percent dichloro diphenyl

)wn Roach Powder" was alleged to be zhisbranded


he
LO6
>0.
%.
08
ad
as
a


containers ii
% DDT) Acti
Petroleums
%. Inert Ing
misleading in
the product
considerable


t which the product was packed
ve Ingredients 13.38%. Dichloro
hydrocarbons 3.00%. Sesamin
redients 86.62%-Total 100.00%,"
that said statements were not a
did not contain 10 percent DDT,
amount of sodium fluoride which


should have been listed as an active ingredient.
On October 22, 1948, the defendants entered a plea of guilty to each of the five
counts of the information, and a fine of $20 was assessed on each count, making
a total of $100.


2038. Adulteration and misbranding of "Macy's Insect Spray."
Chemical Works, Incorporated, a corporation. Plea
$301. (I. & F. No. 2490. I. D. No. 15591.)


U. S. v.
Guilty.


Ultra
Fine


An examination of a sample of "Macy's Insect Spray" sho
2.6 percent of dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane and 2.0
thiocyanoacetate, in a mineral oil base.
On August 6, 1948, the United States Attorney for the Di
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
an information against the Ultra Chemical Works, Inc., a
shipment in interstate commerce on or about July 3, 1947,
to New York City, N. Y., of a quantity of a product knov
Spray" which was an adulterated and misbranded insectic
ing of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
In count one the product was alleged to be adulterated
or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under
the containers in which said product was packed were labele


"Contains 5% DDT Ingredients Dichlo:
thiocyanoacetate 4% contains
ethane)," whereas said product contain
4 percent terpene thiocyanoacetate.
T. .. t- ~ ,, -_- t i.. ^ .1-_ -t- ... 3* --


wed that it contained
8 percent of terpene


strict of New J
in the District
corporation, al
from Paterson,
vn as "Macy's ]
ide within the


ersey,
Court
leging
N. J.,
Insect
mean-


in that its strength
which it was sold as
d, in part, as follows:


diphenyl trichloroethane 5%, Terpene
5% DDT (Dichloro diphenyl trichloro-
less than 5 percent DDT and less than







2016-2040]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


689


hypochlorite and that when 1 ounce of the product was added to 4 gallons of
cold water it would not result in the preparation of a disinfecting solution con-
taining 100 parts per million available chlorine. .
On May 4, 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
a libel praying seizure and condemnnation of 475 cases of 12 one-quart bottles,
more or less, of "Whitex Washing Solution" at Texarkana, Tex., alleging that
the product had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 10,
1945, from North Little Rock, Ark., by Nu-Way Products Co., 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 the statements: "Active
Ingredients Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25%, Inert Ingredients 94.75%." borne on the
labels affixed to the bottles containing the product, represented that the product
possessed a standard or quality of not less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite
and not more than 94.75 percent inert ingredients, whereas the strength or purity
of the product fell below said standard or quality in that 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 misbranded in that the statements: (1)
"Active Ingredients Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25%, Inert Ingredients 94.75%" and
(2) "Whitex Disinfects As A Disinfectant Add
1 ounce bleach for each 4 gallons of cold water to prepare disinfecting solution
100 parts per million Available Chlorine," borne on the labels affixed to the con-
tainers of the product, were false and misleading in that the product contained
less than 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite and more than 94.75 percent inert
ingredients and would' not give a disinfecting solution containing 100 parts per
million available chlorine when diluted as directed.
Nu-Way Products Company of North Little Rock, Ark., claimed ownership of
the product, requested its release under bond pursuant to the act, and consented
to the entry of a condemnation decree.
On July 20, 1945, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it
was subsequently ordered that the condemned product be delivered to the Fed-
eral Correctional Institution, Texarkana, Tex., for removal of the product from
its containers and use of the product by such institution, and that the empty
containers be delivered to the Nu-Way Products Company.

2040. Misbranding of "Sterel." U. S. v. 4,797, more or less, dispensers of "Sterel."
Consent decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and release under bond.
(I. & F. No. 2461. I. D. Nos. 955 and 956.)
Examination of "Sterel" showed that the product was an automatic pressure
atomizer containing glycol, isopropyl alcohol, cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide,


mineral oil,
On April
acting upon
a libel pray
"Sterel" at
interstate c
from Neode,
misbranded


and a prope]
7, 1947, the
a report by
ing seizure
Washington
commerce on
sha, Kans.,


llant.
United States Attorney for the D
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed i
and condemnation of 4,797, more o]
, D. C., alleging that the product L
or about November 30, 1946, and
by Airosol, Inc., and charging that


district of Columbia,
n the District Court
r less, dispensers of
tad been shipped in
December 14, 1946,
the product was a


fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels of the product
and circulars accompanying the product bore the following statements which


I







690


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


infection, and to redu
Air-on Surfaces. *
Kill Active Germs th4
Room-Purify the air
room to help prevent
best results, surfaces s


ce the contamination of food. Kills Active
* Proved Powerful Germicide for Home
e Scientific Way In Your Hoine -* *
and kill active germs on the equipment 'use
additional infections, and protect those wh
should be clean and dry before spraying. In


Germs in
Use *
In the S
d In the s
o enter.
[he Nurse


Reduce the concentration of living, disease-bearing organisms. You
Sterel safely in the air and on Baby's crib, play pen, toys, bath, traini
high chair. Bathtubs, Showers, Toilets-A bathroom can be the source


pathogenic organisms. Keep your bathroom germ-free
fixtures and tile floor, then spraying with Sterel. *


To reduce contamination of food, spray inside
other containers used for storing food. Make


before spraying.
thrive in moist
moisture, fresh
around garbage
ters-should be
against disease-
holders *


Avoid spraying on food. In
places. Keep drainboard, sin
and clean, by spraying daily
can each time it is emptied.


frequently treated with
bearing bacteria. Combs,
* are often a source of


K

I


cleanliness now include a quick spraying
Protection During Epidemics-Sterel can
many common ills which are transmitted
on hosiery to reduce danger of infection or
air-borne active germs, it is necessary to


fresh by
od Storage


the
* *
ick-
ick-
For
ry-


can use
ng chair,
of many
cleaning
Areas-


empty refrigerator, breadbox and
sure surfaces are clean and dry
The Kitchen-Bacteria and fungi
ks, and other areas subjected to
with Sterel. Spray inside and


Doorknobs,


Steel to
Brushes,
infection
of toilet
be your
through


Telephone


Bannis-


protect children and adults
Razors-scissors, toothbrush
s. Daily habits of personal
articles with Sterel. Extra
first line of defense against
the air.-Spray in shoes and


reinfection of feet. To kill
spray Sterel frequently as the air is


constantly changing and being contaminated by people talking, sneezing,
coughing. The Germicidal Effect of Sterel on Surfaces Lasts for an Exten
Period of Time. The fine Sterel mist penetrates into cracks and crevices, no
and corners-the places where germs may lurk and multiply, and where
cannot reach them satisfactorily with the usual methods of applying liquid
infectants. Helps Keep your Home Germ-Free Reduces


Contamination of Food


It was allege
implied; that i
a powerful or
protect health
would not grea
in the air or on


* Reduces Danger of Infections."


d that the product was not a sterilizing agent as the name "Sterel"
t did not kill all active germs in the air and on surfaces, was not
proved double-action germicide, and could not be relied upon to
or safeguard against infection when used as directed; and that it
tly reduce the danger of infection from bacteria, fungi, or viruses
surfaces, give extra protection against infection during epidemics,


kill infectious fungi found on shoes and stockings, or serve as the first
defense against common air-borne infections as claimed. It was alleged
that the product would not keep the bathroom germ-free or help keep th
germ-free or purify the air in the sickroom as claimed; and that it could


relied upon to act as a germicide t
razors, scissors, toothbrush holders,
room fixtures, bannisters, doorknobs
toys when applied in the manner out
The Airosol Company, a firm cor
mon, of Washington, D. C., Josepi


individually, and Airosol, Inc., a
ownership of the product and r
act, and consented to the entry o
On October 15, 1948, a decree
it was ordered that the product


Kai
eque
,fac
of c
be


line of
further
e home
not be


:o disinfect such articles as combs, brushes,
kitchen utensils, sickroom equipment, bath-
, telephones, nursery equipment, or children'
lined.


posed of Joseph Skubitz an
h Skubitz, individually, Joe
isas Corporation of Neodesh
listed its release under bond
condemnation decree.
condemnation and forfeiture
released to the claimants un


d Joel D. Black-
l D. Blackmon,
a, Kans., claimed
ptirsuant to the

was entered and
der bond for the















INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 2016-2040


N. J. No.


Cenco Vera Pine Oil Disinfectant:
Mike Goldberg -- -
Central Chemical Co- --. -
Chloro-San:
C. G. Whitlock Co- ..-.-
Clorton Supersparkle:
Ben Van Etten -.-.-_-. .
Clorton Chemical Oo .-.
Crown Odorless Insect Spray,
Crown Insecticide Contains 5%
DDT, and Crown Roach Pow-
der:
Harry W. David, Agnes L.
David, Bernard R. Freud-
enthal, and Elsa L. Freud-
Oenthal --... .
Chemical Service of Balti-
m ore ......-......
Four BBBB Bleach:
Central City Pickle Co--.....
Hermox:
Fred Herman & Sons ._
Linco:
Linco Products Co- .-.---.
Lon-Dre' Bleach:
Chlorinated Products Co-- .
Lure-Kill Wafers:
Farm & Home Products Co -
Macy's Insect Spray:
Ultra Chemical Works, Inc__
Moon-Shine Washing Fluid:
Moon-Shine Chemical Co-_
No-Me Brand Household Bleach:
Lucido Brothers Grocery Co.
Nu-Way's Bleach:
Nu-Way Products Co--_-.....


2023
2023

2024

2028
2028






2037

2037

2026

2025

2022

2021

2033

2038

2036

2027

2017


N. J. No.


Rocket Insecticide Spray with
D. D. T.:
Rocket Products Corp---
Roman Cleanser:
Roman Cleanser Co-
Rug-Glo:


Farm
Rug-Glo:


Farm 4
Safeway 1(
Powder:
Safew
Sno-White
Winst4
Sterel:
Airoso
Superior-
Louis
Golc
Gold
Super
Wor


2020

2030


& Home Products Co 2034

& Home Products Co_ 2035
)% D. D. T. Insecticide

ay Chemical Co --- 2029
Laundry Bleach:
on & Newell Co--- 2032

1, Inc .----. 2040
Ready to Spray DDT:
Goldman, Justin D.
Iman, and Alvin I.
Iman --- ---- 2019
or Paint & Varnish
ks ----------2019


Tote:


Speed Chemical Co
White Monday:
St. Clair Manufacturing Co_
White Washing Solution:
Nu-Way Products Co
Whiz Pine Oil Disinfectant No.
500 and No. 600 Whiz Pine Oil
Disinfectant:
R. M. Hollingshead Corp---


2016

2031

2039



2018




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
I1 1 II flllWll l Hllllliii!11111lllIMII
3 1262 08582 5155





14