Notices of judgment under the Federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act

< z 5 I3 -


-1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF


I


AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH


SERVICE


NOTICES


PLANT PEST CONTROL BRANCH

JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL
FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT


INSECTICIDE,


Nos. 281-251


flo8 following notices of judgment relate to cases arising in
District Courts and are approved for publication as provided
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U. S. (
GEoKGE W
Acting Administrator, Agricultural R
WASHINGTON, D. C., October 12, 1956.


the United
in section 6
. 135d).
r. IRVING, Jr.
research Her


States
of the


ice.
vice.


231. Lack of required information on label, misbranding and adulteration of
"BARCO DIELDRIN 15% EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE"; mis-
branding and adulteration of "BARCO ALDRIN EQUIVALENT 2 23%
EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE"; lack of registration of "BARCO
12% GAMMA BHC WETTABLE POWDER"; lack of registration, mis-
branding and adulteration of "BARCO DDT 50% WETTABLE POWDER";
misbranding and adulteration of "BARCO IE 44. 2,4-D WEED KILLER
44% ISOPROPYL ESTER EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE"; lack of
registration, misbranding and adulteration of "BARCO LINDANE 25%
WETTABLE POWDER"; and misbranding and adulteration of "BARCO
TOXAPHENE 60% EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE CONTAINS 6
LBS. TOXAPHENE PER GALLON." U. S. v. Barco Chemicals, Inc., a
corporation. Plea of guilty on Counts 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 18.
Counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 17, and 19 were dismissed. Fined $1,750 and
costs. I. F. & R. No. 265. 1. D. Nos. 26520, 26521, 26522, 26534, 26535,
28830, 28831, 28832, 28837, 28908.)
Upon examination, three samples of "BARCO DIELDRIN 15% EMULSIFI-
ABLE CONCENTRATE" were found to contain 7.35%, 6.92% and 7.70% respec-
tively of hexachloro epoxy octahydro dimethano naphthalene instead of 15.83%
as claimed on the label. The deficiencies were such that the product would not


be effective for
showed that th
content. Upon
2 23Z EM'


the
ey d
exa
ULS


a -


mntrol o.
not beE
nation,
ABLE


f the insects named. An examine
ir a statement of the net weight
two samples of "BARCO ALDR
CONCENTRATE CONTAINS


nation of
or means
IN EQU
2 LBS.


the labels
ure of the
IVALENT
ALDRIN


~at";1~~ D
a~

-a S.


-s


m--


aa~3rf~






164


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N.J.


PHENE 60% EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE CONTAINS 6 LBS. TOXA-
PHENE PER GALLON" was found to contain 27.4% toxaphene instead of 60%
texaphene as claimed op the label. The product "BARCO 12% GAMM.A BHO
WETTABLE POWDER" was not registered with the Secretary of Agriculture.
S24, the United States Attorney for the Southern District----
lovision, acting upon a report'by the Secretary of Agriculture,
filed inrJistr-ict Court an information against Barco Chemicals, Inc., a
corporation, alleging shipments in interstate commerce on or about June 10,
1953, April 11 1953, August 26, 1953, June 6, 1953, May 13, 1953, and August
9 1953, of quanties of "BARCO DIELDRIN 15% EMULSIFIABLE CONCEN-
RATE," "BARCO ALDRIN mQUIVALRNT 2 23% EMULSIFIABLE OON-
CENTRATE OONTAINS 2 LBS. AIDRIN (COMPOUND 118) EQUIVALENT
PER GALLON," "BAROx 12% GAMMA BHO WETTABLE POWDER," "BAR()OO
DDT 50% WETTABLE POWDER," "BAROO IE 44. 2,4-D WEED KILLER
44% ISOPROPYL ESTER EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE," "BAROO
LINDANE 25% WETTABLE POWDER," and "BARCO TOXAPHENE 60%
EMULSIFIABLE CONCEiNTRATE CONTAINS 6 LBS. TOXAPHENE PER
GALLON," from Des Moines, Iowa to South Bend, Ind., Omaha, Nebr., and
Hobart, Okla., in violation of the act.
In counts 1 and 4, it was alleged that the label for the product "BARCO
DIELDRIN 15% EMULSIFIABLB CONCENTRATE" did not bear a statement
of the net weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
In counts 2 and 5, it was alleged that the product "BARCO DIELDRIN 10%
EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" was misbranded within the meaning of
the act in that its labeling stated in part:


"BARCO
DIELDRIN
15% EMULSIFIABLE
CONCENTRATE
Contains 1.5 Ibs. Dieldrin per gallon


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Hexachloro-Ejoxy Octahydro
Dimethano Naphthalene----------
Related Compounds__-------- ---
Petroleum Hydrocarbons -- --------
INERT INGREDIENTS.-----------------


By Weight


15. 83%
2. 79%
73. 38%
8. 00%


TOTAL-_--.-- ------ ..-- ...... -- ------------ 100. 00%
Net Contents


GENERAL DIRECTIONS


This product is an emulsifiable insecticide containing 1.5 pounds
of Dieldrin per gallon. It is forniulated to enable the user to easily
prepare water dilutions of varying strengths. It may be used in
conventional hydraulic sprayers, low-volume ground applicators,
and airplane sprayers.


-____






231-251J


NOTICES


IE E E E E E:,E E:::: ~2~ E E E::
li~iEEE::EEEi: ~EiE


165


The above dosages will control the following insects which attack
cotton:


":i


Certain species of
Brown cotton bug
Grasshoppers
Thrips
Fall army worm


cutworms t
$


*For early season control use .15 pounds per acre (1 gallon in suf-
ficient water to cover 10 acres). In the States of Texas an.d Missis-
sippi, Dieldrin is recommended for early season boll weevil control
at .1 pound per acre (1 gallon in sufficient water to cover 15 acres).
For mid-season and late season control, use Dieldrin at .15 to .4
pounds per acre (1 gallon in sufficient water to cover 3.75 to 10
acres in compliance with State recommendations).

t For early season control of certain species of cutworms, use 1 gal-
lon in sufficient water to cover 15 acres.


$ To control stink bugs in Arizona (Say's plant bug and brown cot-
ton bug on cotton) it appears necessary to use % gallon per acre.
For contorl of the boll worm, add 1 quart of 25% DDT (contains
2 pounds DDT per gal.) to the recommended dosage for each acre
covered.


ADULT ALFALFA


WEEVIL CONTROL


For control of adult alfalfa weevil, use % gallon per acre (1 gal-
lon will treat 6 acres). For application by ground sprayers:
Use enough water per acre to give uniform coverage. For appli-
cation by aircraft: use a minimum of 2 gallons of diesel oil (or
equivalent) per acre.
Apply in the early spring, when alfalfa is no more than 1 to 2
inches tall.
Do not repeat the application.
Do not allow livestock to graze in treated fields prior to removal
of the first cutting of hay."

which Implied that the product contained 15% of dieldrin; 1.5 pounds of dieldrin
per gallon; and a total of 15.83% by weight of hexachloro epoxy octahydro
dimethano naphthalene and 2.79% by weight of related compounds and that
when used as directed, the product would be effective for the control of the
insects named in the labeling; whereas, the product contained less than 15%
of dieldrin; less than 1.5 pounds of dieldrin per gallon; and less than a total
of 15.83% by weight of hexachloro epoxy octahydro dimethano naphthalene and
279% by weight of related compounds, and the product, when used as directed,
would not be effective for the control of the insects named in the labeling.
In counts 3 and 6, it was alleged that the product was adulterated within the
meaning of the act in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard
or quality under which it was sold, as its labeling implied that the product con-
tained 15% of dieldrin; 1.5 pounds of dieldrin per gallon; and a total of 15.83%
by weight of hexachloro epoxy octahydro dimethano naphthalene and 2.79% by


JUDGMENT


Boll Weevil *
Rapid plant bug
Cotton fleahopper
ay's plant bug $
Southern green stink
Tarnished plant bug







166


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N.J.


"BARCO
ALDRIN
EQUIVALENT 2
23% EIMULSIFIABLE
CONCENTRATE

Contains 2 Ibs. Aldrin
(Compound 118)
Equivalent per Gallon


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Hexachloro Hexahydro Dimenthano
elated Compounds .------------
Petroleum Hydrocarbons,._.
INERT INGREDIENTS .- -.--


Naphthalene....-
-------- -. -

-- --- -


23.0%
17. 5%
52. 0%
7.5%


TOTAL ..-.- --__ --- --------- 100.0%


GENERAL DIRECTIONS


Aldrin Equivalent 2 is an emulsifiable insecticide containing 2
pounds of Aldrin (Compound 118) equivalent per gallon."
which implied that the product contained the equivalent of 23% of aldrin; the
equivalent of 2 pounds of aldrin (Compound 118) per gallon; and a total of
23% of hexachloro hexahydro dimethano naphthalene and 17.5% of related com-
pounds; whereas, the product contained less than the equivalent of 23% of
aldrin; less than the equivalent of 2 pounds of aldrin (Compound 118) per gallon;
and less than a total of 23% of hexachloro hexahydro dimethano naphthalene
and 17.5% of related compounds.
In count 8, it was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning
of the act in that its label stated:


"BARCO
ALDRIN


EQUIVALENT


23% EMULSIFIABLE
CONCENTRATE

Contains 2 lbs. Aldrin
(Compound 118)
Equivalent per Gallon


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Hgxachloro Hexahydro Dimenthano Naphthalene--...


23. 0%






231-251]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


167


compounds; whereas, the product contained less than
the equivalent of 2 pounds of aldrin (Compound 118)
a total of 23% of hexachloro hexahydro dimethano i
related compounds.
In count 9, it was alleged that the product "BARBCO
TABLE POWDER," had not been registered with the


as required
In count
POWDER,'
required by
n count


23% of aidrin; less than
per gallon; and less than
laphthalene and 17.5% of

12% GAMMA BHC WET-
Secretary of Agriculture,


by section 4 of the act.
10, it was alleged that the product "BARCO DDT 50% WETTABLE
had not been registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as
section 4 of the act.
11, it was alleged that the product "BARCO DDT 50% WETTABLE
was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its labeling


"BARCO


DDT


50% Wettable Powder
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane -------.- 50%
(DDT-setting Point 89 C. Minimum)
INEIRT INGREDIENTS ......................------------------ 50%

100%

WATER TYPE RESIDUAL SPRAY
For the control of stable flies, horseflies, mosquitos, bedbugs
and fleas: mix 1 lb. in enough water to cover approximately 1,000 to
2,000 square feet, about 2 to 5 gals. water depending upon the
porosity of the surface and apply to the point of run-off.

which implied that the product contained 50% of dichloro diphenyl trichloro-
ane and not more than 50% of inert ingredients and that the product when
used as directed would be effective for the control of horse flies, whereas, the
product contained less than 50% of dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane and more
th~n 50% of inert ingredients and when used as directed would not be effective
fr ithe control of horseflies.
In count 12, it was alleged that the product "BARCO DDT 50% WETTABLE
POWDER" was adulterated within the meaning of the act, in that its strength
or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold,
since its labeling bore the statement, "Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane .
50%"; whereas, the product contained less than 50% of dichloro diphenyl
triahloroethane.
In count 13, it was alleged that the product "BARCO IE 44 2,4-D WEED
KIIUB" was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its labeling
stated:
"BARCO


e

,i:



r,






:E

















"""""""
B~~jj
""""":""


WEED KILLER
44% ISOPROPYL ESTER


ij
E::EE"


1104. 2.4-1






168


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODEITICIDE


ACT


[I. F. R. N. J.


than 50% of inert ingredients; whereas, the product contained less than 44%
of isopropyl 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate, less than the equivalent of 37% 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetie acid, and more than 56% of inert ingredients.
In count 14, it was alleged that the product "BAROO IE44 2,4-D WEED
KILLER" was adulterated within the meaning of the act in that its strength
or purity fell below the professed standard of quality under which it was sold,
since its labeling states, "Isopropyl 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate.. 44%"; where-
as, the product contained less than 44% of isopropyl 2,4-dichlorophenosyacetate.
In count 15, it was alleged that the product "BARCO LINDANE 25% WET-
TABLE POWDER" had not been registered with the Secretary of Agriculture,
as required by section 4 of the act.
In count 16, it was alleged that the product "BARCO LINDANE 25% WET-
TtBLE POWDER" was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that the
label stated:
"BARCO
LINDANE


25%f~


Wettable Powder


ACTIVE INGREDIENT:
Gamma Isomer of Benzene Hexachloride from Lindane___ 25%
INERT INGREDIENTS ... -- ---. ... ---..--- 75%

100%


This product is a
Lindane. *


wettable powder formulation containing 25%


25% Lindane Powder


CONTROL OF OTHER PESTS


MANGE (sarcoptic or chorioptic)---or barn itch, scab or scabies-
AND LICE ON DAIRY CATTLE, BEEF CATTLE, SHEEP, HOGS,
AND HORSES: Use at the rate of 1% pounds in 100 gallons of
water. Apply 2 gallons per adult animal (horses and cattle); pro-
portionately lesser amounts for smaller animals, at from 300 to 400)
pounds pressure. Complete coverage is essential for good control.
For most effective mange treatment apply two sprays one week
apart.
For Lice Control alone, only one spray at low pressure is required.
Very young animals, especially calves under three months of age,
may be injured by the treatment. The treatment of young calves is
advisable, however, to prevent reinfestation of the herd. If young
calves are treated, the amount per animal should be approximately
one quart diluted spray.

FOR CONTROL OF TICKS AND LICE ON BEEF CATTLE AND
LICE ON HOGS AND HORSES: Use at the rate of 1 pound per
100 gallons of water. Treat entire animal or infested area as
necessary.
FOR CONTROL OF LICE ON DAIRY CATTLE: Use 1 pound per
1 o1" tnllainct nP i n' n i4-fr r n d-m nn-aran 1 #Mnrt.I n t nnnnen my









"";il:;
i

,a







~lii;


li-251 J


JUDGMENT


169


75% of inert ingredients, and, when used as directed, it would not be effective
for the control of ticks and lice on beef cattle, hogs, and horses or lice on dairy
battle.
In count 17, it was alleged that the product "BARCO LINDANE 25% WET-
TABLE POWDER" was adulterated within the meaning of the act in that its
strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under which
it was sold, since the label stated, "Gamma Isomer of Benzene Hexachloride
from Lindane 25%"; whereas, the product contained less than 25% of the
gamma isomer of benzene hexachloride from lindane.
In count 18, it was alleged that the product "BARCO TOXAPHENE 60%
EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" was misbranded within the meaning of
the act in that its labeling stated:


"BABR


3O TOX


APHENE 60% EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE

Contains 6 lbs. Toxaphene per gallon


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
TOXAPHENE
(Technical Chlorinated Camphene, Chlorine Content
67% to 69% -... .---- ----------- --- ---- --- ---
REFINED PETROLEUM OIL- -- -- ------- --- --
INERT INGREDIENTS ..........---------.-------


60%
30%
10%


TOTAL .... -- ------- --- -- --- ----- 100%

DIRECTIONS


DO NOT SPRAY


CONCENTRATE-MIX WITH


WATER AS DIRECTED


Where No Quantity of Water is Given Use Sufficient
Amount for Good Coverage of One Acre.

GRASSHOPPERS
*
BAITS-Dry bait containing 1% pints Toxaphene per 100 Ibs. of
coarse bran when applied at a rate of 5 to 10 lbs. per acre (accord-
ing to the severity of infestation) will give as good initial control
and will remain effective longer than a standard wet bait contain-
ing 6 lbs. of sodium fluosilicate applied at the recommended rate.
An effective wet bait can be prepared by mixing 1 lb. Toxaphene in
emulsion form with 25 Ibs. of mill-run bran and 3 times the volume
of sawdust (approximately 3% bushels). Enough water is used to
make a damp, crumbly mass. Wet bait should be applied at a rate of
20 lbs. per acre.

LIVESTOCK PESTS
* WINTER TICK ON CATTLE (except dairy animals),
HORSES AND SHEEP-Use 1 gallon Toxaphene in 119 gallons
water and use as a spray or dip.

LONE STAR TICK on CATTLE (except dairy animals), HORSES


~lii
or
ci:
(~i"""
L"
#:,
IE
jj
y
IE EE

iii:


NOTICES






170


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICID E,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. P. R. N.J.


SUGAR BEND WaBWORM-Use 1 quart per acre to control sugar
beet webworm larvae Apply in such a manner as to a go
coverage to the underside of the beet leaves.
*


LYGUS BUGS ON ALFALFA,
BUGS-Use 2% pints per acre.


ALFALFA


YELLOW STRIPED ARMY WOBMS,
PALFA-Use 1 quart per acre."


WEEVIL,


SPITTLE


BUGS


CHINCT ....

ON AL-


which implied that the product contained 60% of toxaphene (technical chlori-
nated camphene, chlorine content 67% to 69%) ; six pounds of toxaphene per
gallon; and not more than 10% of inert ingredients; that the product, when used
as directed as a bran bait, would control grasshoppers; and that the product,
when used as directed, would control winter ticks on cattle (except dairy cattle),
horses, and sheep; the cotton insects named in the labeling; and sugar beet web-
worms, lygus bugs on alfalfa, alfalfa weevils, chinch bugs, yellow striped army
worms, and spittle bugs on alfalfa; whereas the product contained less than 60%
of toxaphene (technical chlorinated camphene, chlorine content 67% to 69%);
less than six pounds of toxaphene per gallon; and more than 10% of inert
ingredients; the product, when used as directed as a bran bait, would not control
grasshoppers; and the product, when used as directed, would not control winter
ticks on cattle (except dairy cattle), sheep, or horses; the cotton insects named


in the labeling; or sugar beet webiworms, lygus bugs on alfalfa, alfalfa we
chinch bugs, yellow striped army worms, or spittle bugs on alfalfa.
In count 19, it was alleged that the product "BARCO TOXAPHENE
EMULSIFIABLE CONCEINTRATE" was adulterated within the meaning
act in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or qi
under which it was sold since its labeling stated, "Contains 6 lbs. Toxa]
per gallon," "Active Ingredients: Toxaphene (Technical Chlorinated Cami
Chlorine Content 67% to 69%) 60%," "Inert Ingredients 10% ,"


implied that the product contained six pounds of toxaphene per ga
of toxaphene (technical chlorinated camphene, chlorine content 67%
and not more than 10% of inert ingredients; whereas, the product
less than six pounds of toxaphene per gallon; less than 60% of
(technical chlorinated camphene, chlorine contents 67% to 69%),;
than 10% of inert ingredients.
On May 3, 1955, the defendant entered a plea of guilty on counts
seven, nine, ten, eleven, thirteen, fifteen, sixteen and eighteen. Counts


four, six, eight, twelve, fourteen, seventeen
fine of $1,750 and costs was imposed.


and nineteen


evls,

60%
3f the
quality
phene
)hene,
which


lion: 60%
to 69%);
contained
toxaphene
and more


two, five,
one, three,


were dismissed.


232. Misbranding and adulteration of "PINE OIL DISINFECTANT NO. 4" and
"PINE OIL DISINFECTANT MINIMUM PHENOL COEFFICIENT OF
4 BY THE F. D. A. METHOD." U. S. v. 137 one-gallon containers, more
or less, of '"PINE OIL DISINFECTANT NO. 4" and 202 one-pint con-
tainers more or less, of PINE OIL DISINFECTANT MINIMUM
PHENOL COEFFICIENT OF 4 BY THE F. D. A. METHOD". Default
decree of condemnation and forfeiture and it was ordered that the
products be delivered to one or more public or charitable institutions,
who could give proper assurance of its legitimate use. (I. F. & R. No.
271. I. D. Nos. 30825 and 30626.)
Upon examination, samples of "PINE OIL DISINFECTANT NO. 4" and
"PINE OIL DISINFECTANT MINIMUM PHENOL COEFFICIENT OF 4 BY
TITFT If. A aWMyTTf1TV' wara fndnnl tn onntfairi 2RlOA wator nnd 124Q ao watPr




II.

"8: *Q'I Q 1
^^>J-2511J~:


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


171


It was alleged that the products "PINE OIL DISINFECTANT NO. 4" and
"PINE OIL DISINFECTANT MINIMUM PHENOL COEFFICIENT OF 4 BY
THE F. D. A. METHOD" were misbranded in that their labels stated in part:

PINE OIL
DISINFECTANT

Inert Ingredients:
Water, not more than 10%"


which implied or represented that the pi
ard CS-69-38 for pine oil disinfectant
more than 10% of water, whereas they
CS-69-38 and they contained more than
It was alleged that the products weri
act'in that their strength or purity fell
under which they were sold, since their


than 10%", whereas the products contain
On April 29, 1955, no claimant having
and forfeiture was entered and it was c


products met the U.


S. Commercial Stand-


and that the products did not contain
did not meet U. S. Commercial Standard
10% of water.


adulterated within the meaning
elow the professed standard or
abels stated, in part, "Water, no
Led more than 10% water.
g appeared, a decree of condemn
orderedd that the products be de


to one or more public or charitable institutions who could
ance of its legitimate use.


of the
quality
)t more


nation
livered


give proper assur-


283. Lack of registration, lack of required information on
ing of "CHLORDANE 20 -1." U. S. v. one 55-galloi
of "CHLORDANE 20 -1." Consent decree of cond
of the product for purpose of bringing it into con
( I F. & B. No. 273. I. D. No. 30451.)
The product "CHLORDANE 20 -1" was not registered
secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The labeling
to bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the c
statement, adequate directions for use, or an adequate
statement.


On May 12, 1955, the United States Attorney for the
Carolina, Charleston Division, acting upon a report
culture, filed in the United States District Court a
condemnation and confiscation of one 55-gallon drum,
DANE 20 -1" at Charleston, S. C., alleging that the
poison which had been transported interstate by th
Inc., on or about April 8, 1955, from Tampa, Fla., in


labels,
n drum1
emnati
ipliancc


and misbrand-
, more or less,
on and release
s with the act.


inder the Federal In-
of the product failed
content, an ingredient
warning or caution


Eastern District of South
by the Secretary of Agri-
libel praying seizure for
more or less, of "CHLOR-
product was an economic
e Universal Laboratories,
violation of the act.


It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture, as required by section 4 of the act.
It was further alleged that the label for the product did not bear a statement
of the net weight of measure of the contents of the container.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its label did not bear an ingredient statement giving the
name and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients, or an ingredient statement giving the names
of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the descending order
of the percentage of each present in each classification, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
pf4 the act in that its accompanying labeling did not contain directions for use







172


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


of "REMINGTON STERILIZER FOR ELECTRIC SHAVERS"'
decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. F. & B. No. 272.
30654.)


Default
I. D. No.


The product "REMINGTON STERILIZER FOR ELECTRIC SHAVERS" was
not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and
the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient
statement, as is required by the act.
On April 20, 1955, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 217
four-ounce bottles, more or less, of "REMINGTON STERILIZER FOR ELBC-
TRIO SHAVERS," at Boston, Mass., alleging that the product was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate, on or about December 8, 1954
by Remington Rand Inc. from Milford, Conn., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as is required by section 4 of the act.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning


of the act in that the
an ingredient state
ingredients, together
ingredient statement
inert ingredients in
in each classification,
On July 12, 1955,


labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear
ent giving the name and percentage of each of the active
with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, or an
giving the names of each of the active and each of the
the descending order of the percentage of each present
together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients.
a default decree of condemnation was entered and the


United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the product.
235. Lack of registration and required information on label and misbranding of
"KEENCO CHEMICAL NEST LINERS." U. S. v. 83 boxes, more or
less, of "KEENCO CHEMICAL NEST LINERS." Decree of condemna-
tion, forfeiture and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 274. I. D. No. 30720.)
The product was not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product showed that the labels affixed
to the containers of the product did not bear a statement of net weight or measure
of the contents, a statement giving the name and address of the manufacturer,
registrant or person for whom manufactured, or an ingredient statement.
On August 25, 1955, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of 83 boxes, more or less, of "KEENOO CHEMICAL NEST LINERS,"
at Raleigh, N. C., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had
been transported interstate, on or about June 30, 1953, by Keen Manufacturing
Corp., from Vineland, N. J., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered under section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the label for the product did not bear a statement giving the
name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or person for whom manu-
factured, or a statement of the net weight or measure of the content.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded in that the label for
the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and percentage
of each of the active ingredients, together with the total percentage of the inert
ingredients, or an ingredient statement giving the names of each of the active and
each of the inert ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each
present in each classification, together with the total percentage of the inert
ingredients.
On October 20, 1955, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation


:E:


EI. F. a. a,. ia6







2a1-251]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


173


An examination of the retail cartons containing one "DALAMAR-X FLY
KILLER ** ELECTRIC WALL MODEL VAPORIZER" and one package
of "REFILL FOR DALAMAR-X FLY KILLER DOOMANE" showed
that the outside containers or wrappers of the retail packages did not bear a
statement of the net weight or measure of the contents. They also failed to bear
an ingredient statement.
On September 2, 1954, the United States Attorney for the District of Massa-
chusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 105 "DALAMAR-X FLY KILLER" Units, more or less, and 60 packages, more
or less, of "REFILL FOR DALAMAR-X FLY KILLER" at Holyoke, Mass.,
alleging that the products were economic poisons which had been transported
interstate on June 10, 1953, by Fly Doom, Inc., from Vallejo, Calif., in violation
of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of


Agriculture as required by section 4 of the
It was alleged that the outside container
"DALAMAR-X FLY KILLER" Unit did not
measure of the contents of the containers.
It was further alleged that the label on
package of the product "DALAMAR X FLI


act.
of the retail package of the product
bear a statement of the net weight or

i the outside container of the retail


S" KILLER" Unit


gredient statement giving the name and percentage of
gredients, together with the total percentage of the i:
ingredient statement giving the names of each of the
inert ingredients in the descending order of the percent
each classification, together with the total percentage of
On October 18, 1954, no claimant having appeared, a
and forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the
destroy the products.


eac
nert
acti'
tage
the


did not bear an i
h of the active i
ingredients, or
pe and each of t]
of each present
inert ingredients.


decree of condemnation
United States Marshal


237. Lack of registration and required information on label of "TOPS! THE
ARISTOCRAT IN MOTHPROOFING" and lack of registration, lack of
required information on the label, misbranding and adulteration of
"HI-HAT MOTH PROOFING SOLUTION." U. S. v. eight 5-gallon
drums, one 15-gallon drum, and two 30-gallon drums, more or less, of
"TOPS! THE ARISTOCRAT IN MOTHPROOFING," and three 15-
gallon drums and two 30-gallon drums, more or less, of "HI-HAT MOTH
PROOFING SOLUTION." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture
and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 275. I. D. Nos. 30205 and 30206.)


The product "TOPS! THE ARISTOCRAT IN MOTHPROOFING" was not
registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and
an examination showed that the label affixed to the product did not bear a state-
ment of the net weight or measure of the content.
The product "HI-HAT MOTH PROOFING SOLUTION" was not registered
under the act and an examination showed that the label affixed to the container
of the product did not bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the
content. The product was also found to be misbranded and adulterated.
On June 9, 1955, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illi-
nois, Eastern Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
filed in the United States District Court, a libel praying seizure for condem-
nation and confiscation of eight 5-gallon drums, one 15-gallon drum, and two
80-gallon drums, more or less, of "TOPS! THE ARISTOCRAT IN MOTH-
PROOFING," and three 15-gallon drums and two 30-gallon drums, more or
less. of "HI-HAT MOTH PROOFING SOLUTION" at Chicago, Ill., alleging


UK


v


v







174


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND EI]OD)ENTICIDE)


ACT


tI.F.~R, .K4.


"Hi-Hat
MOTHPROOF CLEANING SYSTEM
MOTHPROOFING SOLUTION
Directions: Use % oz. of HI-HAT Mothproofing Solution per pound
of wool to be cleaned. A smaller amount: % oz. per pound may be
used on materials other than wool for detergency and for de-odor-
izing. Hi-Hat Mothproofing solution must be regarded as moisture
when adding to any system. It may be added to a stock solution or
used 100% in place of water as it has it own carrier.
Soap Charged Systems: %% to 1%. Add Hi-Hat to the moisture
carrying soap in place of all or part of the moisture that is normally
used in the stock solution, being sure to get in % oz. per pound of
Hi-Hat mothproofing solution.


Super Charged Systems: 2% to 4%
wheel (% oz. per pound wools) or
quirements may be, leaving out any
may also be added to the strong soap
load.


0. Add Hi-Hat direct to the
whatever your moisture re-
moisture previously used. It
in place of water if added each


4%---Two Bath-With Automatic Conductivity Control: For pe-
troleum and synthetic systems let Hi-Hat be the moisture 100%,
cutting of the water supply and filling the water dispenser bowl
with Hi-Hat. You may elevate the metal drum of Hi-Hat and let it
flow directly into line by gravity. No dial changes on the electronic
control is necessary using the above directions. If a % water and
1/2 Hi-Hat solution is desired in the water dispenser bowl then the
dial must be set back one point. (i. e. from 8.5 to 7.5.)
Humidifier Usage: Add the proper amount of Hi-Hat to the
humidifier. Subtract this amount from the required amount of
moisture. Add the Hi-Hat then add the balance of moisture thru
the humidifier.
Synthetic Solvent Systems: Hi-Hat works well in all operations,
letting Hi-Hat replace all moisture previously used.
Active Ingredients:

Silico F luorides -- ------ 14. 00%
Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane 6. 75%

20. 75%
Inert Ingredients:
Includes Chlorophyll detergent, wetting, dispersing,
emulsifying agents and moisture- --.--- -.---- 79. 25%"


and that such statements implied or represented (1) that the product, when
used as directed, would be effective in protecting woolen materials from moths,
and (2) that the product contained 14% of silicono flourides," 6.75% of dichloro-
diphenyl-trichloroethane, and not more than 79.25% of inert ingredients; where-
as, (1) the product, when used as directed, would not be effective in protecting
woolen materials from moths, and (2) the product contained less than 14%


n4! 1n41trs


,, ~In,-,


ii~ *I **** ***tEE**ISLZ.UU


-than ;n Tn/ n7 if Ainnahllrnlinhanvl titnhlnrnthorana anti


I






QRI~-2flhl


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


175


HEAVY DUTY LIQUID BUFFING WAX KILLDEE WEED KILLER."
Consent decree of condemnation and release to claimant for relabeling.
(I. F. & R. No. 270. I. D. No. 30409.)
The product "SASCO FLOR-COTE HEAVY DUTY LIQUID BUFFING WAX
XILLDEE WEED KILLER" was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,


Fmngicide, and
The product
by the product
or an adequate
On March 22
Florida, acting
States District
of one 55-gallon


Rodenticide Act.


was
did no
warni
, 1955
upon i
Court


lso misbranded under the act in that the lab
t bear an ingredient statement, adequate direct
ng or caution statement.
, the United States Attorney for the Northern
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and


eling borne
ons for use,

District of
the United
confiscation


drum of a product labeled, in part, "SASOO FLOR-COTE HEAVY


DUTY LIQUID
Fla., alleging tha
ported interstate
Aliany, Ga., in vi<
It was alleged
of Agriculture as
It was alleged


BUFFING


t the
on o
olatio
that
requi
that


WAX


KILLDEE


product was an
ir about April 1l
in of the act.
the product had
red by section 4 o
the product was


WEED


KILLER


economic poison wi
i, 1954 by the S an

not been registered
f the act.
misbranded within


," at Marianna,


rich had been trans-
d S Company, from


with


the Secretary


the meaning of the


act in that its label did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name and
percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total percentage
of the inert ingredients, or an ingredient statement giving the names of each of
the active and each of the inert ingredients in the descending order of the
percentage of each present in each classification, together with the total per-
centage of the inert ingredients.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the accompanying labeling did not contain directions for use
which are necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the
public.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its label did not bear a warning or caution statement which
is necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man and
other vertebrate animals.
On July 8, 1955, a decree of condemnation was entered condemning the product
under seizure and releasing it to the S and S Company for relabeling.


239. Lack of registration, misbranding and adulteration of "KOOS BADGER
BRAND 24% ALDRIN EQUIVALENT EMULSIFIABLE CONCEN-
TRATE" AND "KOOS BADGER BRAND 15% DIELDRIN EMULSIFI-
ABLE CONCENTRATE" U. S. v. 17 one-gallon containers, 8 five-gallon
containers, and 4 thirty-gallon containers, more or less of "KOOS
BADGER BRAND 24% ALDRIN EQUIVALENT EMULSIFIABLE CON-
CENTRATE" and 71 one-gallon containers, 29 five-gallon containers, and
6 thirty-gallon containers, more or less of "KOOS BADGER BRAND 15%
DIELDRIN EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE." (I. F. & R. No. 258.
I. D. Nos. 28770, 28771, 28772, 28773, 28766 and 28767.)
The label for the product "KOOS BADGER BRAND 24% ALDRIN EQUI-
VAIENT EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" claimed that it consisted in part
of 23.10% of hexachloro hexahydro dimethano naphthalene and 17.37% of
related compounds. The thirty-gallon drums also bore labeling which stated,
in part, "23 PCT. ALDRIN."
Upon examination, a sample from the thirty-gallon containers was found
tof contain flt77R/ nf thb nlnhan inmor nf bonzene herachloride. a nrodunt not






176


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


naphthalene and 13.81% of related compounds or the equivalent of 19.27% of
Aldrin.
The product was also misbranded in that when used as directed in transplant
water it would not control cabbage maggots or cutworms.
The label for the "KOOS BADGER BRAND 15% DIELDRIN EMULSIFI-
ABLE CONCENTRATE" claimed that it consisted in part of 15.83% of heta-
chloro epoxy octahydro dimethano naphthalene and 2.79% of related compounds.
Upon examination, a sample from the five-gallon containers was found to
contain 5.87% of alpha isomer of benzene hexachloride, 0.20% of gamma isomer
of benzene hexachloride, products which were not named in the ingredient
statement, and 7.41% of hexachloro epoxy octahydro dimethano naphthalene.
Upon examination, a sample from the thirty-gallon drums was found to contain
5.45% of alpha isomer of benzene hexachloride, 0.18% of gamma isomer of
benzene hexachloride, products which were not named in the ingredient state-
ment, and 7.42% of hexachloro epoxy octahydro dimethano naphthalene. Upon
examination, a sample from the one-gallon containers was found to contain 5.81%
of alpha isomer of benezene hexachloride, 0.18% of gamma isomer of benzene
hexachloride, products which were not named in the ingredient statement, and
6.24% of hexachloro epoxy octahydro dimethano naphthalene.
The product was also misbranded in that when used as directed, it would not
control onion thrips, onion maggots, or cabbage maggots.
On June 1, 1954, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wis-
consin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 17 one-gallon containers, 8 five-gallon containers, and 4 thirty-gallon con-
tainers, more or less, of "KOOS BADGER BRAND 24% ALDRIN EQUIVALENT
EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE," and 71 one-gallon containers, 29 five-gallon
containers, and 6 thirty-gallon containers, more or less, of "KOOS BADGER
BRAND 15% DIELDRIN EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" at Kenosha,
Wis., alleging that the products were economic poisons which had been trans-
ported interstate on or about April 29, 1953, June 9, 1953, June 15, 1953 and
June 22, 1953, by Barco Chemicals, Inc., from Des Moines, Iowa, in violation of
the act.
It was alleged that the products had not been registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the Act.
It was alleged that the product "KOOS BADGER BRAND 24% ALDRIN
EQUIVALENT EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" was misbranded within the
meaning of the act in that its label stated:

"24% ALDRIN
EQUIVALENT EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Hexachloro Hexahydro-Dimethano Naphthalene-.. 23.10%
Related Compounds....------ --.. -- -. -.- 17. 37%
Petroleum Hydrocarbons- ....... .....--.. 52.03%
INERT INGREDIENTS--------------- -_ 7.50%

TOTAL ------------------ --- _.___-_- -100. 00%
(Contains 2# Aldrin (Compound 118) equivalent per
gallon) *

CABBAGE MAGGOT AND CUTWORM CONTROL IN TRANS-
"WWJ A nt-^ n "r. *Vn A .n 1 -. t a ....k. on U, .. ...- ... ..t.--------------


CI, a. a. N.


























ri
it.;
ii;.


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


177


MIXING DIRECTIONS


Mix with water by agitation or by circulation through the pump and
back into the tank. A proper mixture will have the appearance of
a milky solution with no free oil on the surface. Keep mixture
agitated while spraying. If mixtures are allowed to stand, re-
agitate them before use until a uniform emulsion is formed. *"


whereas the product contained


than


equivalent of 24%


aldrin


than the equivalent of two pounds of aldrin (Compound 118) per gallon; less
than a total of 23.10% of hexachloro hexahydro-dimethano naphthalene and
17.37% of related compounds; and when used as directed in transplant water it
would not control cabbage maggots or cutworms. The product was further mis-
branded within the meaning of the act in that the labeling for the thirty-gallon
containers stated, in part, "23 POT. ALDRIN," which implied that the product
contained 23% aldrin, whereas it contained less than 23% aldrin.
It was further alleged that the product "KOOS BADGER BRAND 24% AL-
DRIN EQUIVALENT EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" was adulterated
within the meaning of the act, in that its strength or purity fell below the pro-
fessed standard or quality as expressed on its labeling, since its labeling bore
the statement:
"24% ALDRIN
EQUIVALENT EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:

Hexachloro Hexahydro-Dimethano Naphthalene_. 23.10%
Related Co.mpounds- ...- -..a--..- -- ....- .- 17. 37%


(Contains 2#
Ion)"


Aldrin


(Compound 118)


equivalent per gal-


whereas the product contained less than the equivalent of
the equivalent of two pounds of aldrin (Compound 118)
product contained less than a total of 23.10% of hexachloro
naphthalene and 17.37% of related compounds.
It was alleged that the product "KOOS BADGER BRA
EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" was misbranded with
act in that its labeling bore the statements:


"15%


24% aldrin; less than
per gallon; and the
hexahydro-dimethano

LND 15% DIELDRIN
tin the meaning of the


DIELDRIN


EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Hexachloro-Epoxy Octahydro Dimethano Naphtha-
lene ----- --- -- -
Related Compounds -------------------
Petroleum Hydrocarbons-- --.---.a.--....----.. -.
INERT INGREDIENTS------ ------------


TOTAL-....a 100.-00%
(Contains 1.5 pounds Dieldrin per gallon)
*
DIRECTIONS FOR USE


15. 83%
2. 79%
76.38%
5.00%


281-251]






178


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


MIXING DIRECTIONS
Mix Badger Brand 15% Dieldrin Emulsifiable Concentrate with
water by agitation or by circulating the mixture through the pump
and back into the tank. A proper mixture will have the appearance
of a milky emulsion with no free oil on the surface. Agitate before
use until a uniform emulsion is obtained.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Badger Brand 15% Dieldrin Emulsifiable Concentrate is an emul-
sifiable insecticide containing 1.5 pounds of Dieldrin per gallon.
It is formulated to enable the user to easily prepare water dilutions
of varying strengths. It may be used in conventional hydraulic
sprayers. *"
whereas the product contained less than 15% dieldrin; less than 1.5 pounds of
dieldrin per gallon; less than a total of 15.88% of hexachloro-epoxy octahydrQ
dimethano naphthalene and 2.79% of related compounds; and the product, when
used as directed, would not control onion thrips, onion maggots, or cabbage
maggots.
It was further alleged that the product "KOOS BADGER BRAND 15%
DIELDRIN EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" was adulterated within the
meaning of the act in that its strength or purity fell below the professed
standard or quality as expressed on its labeling, since its labeling bore the
statements:
"15% DIELDRIN


EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Hexachloro-Epoxy Octahydro Dimethano Na
lene --- ------------- ------------
Related ComDOunds ---------------------


* *


phtha-


15.83%
2. 79%


(Contains 1.5 pounds Dieldrin per gallon)"
whereas the product contained less than 15% dieldrin; less than 1.5 pounds of
dieldrin per gallon; and less than a total of 15.83% of hexachloro-epoxy octa-
hydro dimethano naphthalene and 2.79% of related compounds.
Barco Chemicals, Inc., claimed ownership of the products and on March 21,
1955 a decree of condemnation was entered, releasing the products to the
claimant for the purpose of bringing them into compliance with the act.
240. Lack of registration, required information on label, and misbranding of
"MODEL G COMMERCIAL BUGMASTER" units and "MODEL H BUG-
MASTER" units; and lack of registration of "BUGMASTER CRYSTALS
MODEL G" and "BUGMASTER CRYSTALS MODEL H" U. S. v. 449


"MODEL
packages,
"MODEL
or less, of
decree of
I. D. Nos.
The products
BUGMASTER"
G" and "REFII
registered undei
An examination


G COMMERCIAL BUGMASTER" units, more or less; 123
more or less, of "6 REFILLS BUGMASTER MODEL G"; 349
H BUGMASTER" units, more or less; and 348 packages, more
"6 REFILLS BUGMASTER CRYSTALS MODEL H." Consent
condemnation and release under bond. (I. F. & B. No. 268.
29435, 29436, 29437, and 29438.)
"MODEL G COMMERCIAL BUGMASTER" units, "MODEL H
units, "REFILLS FOR BUGMASTER CRYSTALS MODEL


LLS


r
n
u


FOR


BUGMASTER


CRYSTALS


MODEL


were


the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
in of the labels on the outside containers of the retail packages


ii; iii


f*


4





I:,
P
I,:,,
I
ii
[j


I"
ii


ii


OF JUDGMENT


179


It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was further alleged that the outside container of the retail package of each
"MODEL G COMMERCIAL BUGMASTER" unit and each "MODEL H BUG-
MASTER" unit did not bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the
contents of the container.
It was further alleged that the "MODEL G COMMERCIAL BUGMASTER"
units and the "MODEL H BUGMASTER" units were misbranded within the
meaning of the act, in that their respective labels did not bear an ingredient
statement giving the name and percentage of each of the active ingredients, to-
gether with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, or an ingredient state-
ment giving the names of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in
the descending order of the percentage of each present in each classification,
together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients.
The Southern National Manufacturing Company, Hollister, Mo., appeared as
claimant for the merchandise and on October 8, 1954, a decree of condemnation
was issued and the products were released under bond to the claimant for the
purpose of bringing them into compliance with the act.


241. Lack of registration of "PATTY-O-CANDLE."
more or less, of "PATTY-O-CANDLE." Default
forfeiture and destruction. (I. F. & B. No. 276.
The product "PATTY-O-CANDLE" was not registf
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.


U. S. v. 336 containers,
; decree of condemnation,
I. D. No. 30769.)
ered under the Federal


On or about June 26, 1955, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District
of Virginia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of 336 containers, more or less, of "PATTY-O-CANDLE" at Arlington,
Va., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been transported
interstate on or about May 2, 1955, by the Empire Manufacturing Company from
Kansas City, Mo., in violation of the act.


It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
On February 29, 1956, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemn
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered
stroy the product.


242. Lack of registration and misbranding 4
PRESERVATIVE CREOSOTE." U. S.
less, of "OSAGE SUPERIOR WOOD
Default decree of condemnation, forfeit
No. 281. I. D. No. 30940.)


Agri-

iation
to de-


)f "OSAGE SUPERIOR WOOD
v. 221 gallon containers, more or
PRESERVATIVE CREOSOTE".
ure and destruction. (I. F. & R.


The product "OSAGEI SUPERIOR WOOD PRESERVATIVE CREOSOTE"
was not registered under the Federal Inserticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act. An examination of the product showed that the labels affixed to the
containers of the product did not bear a proper ingredient statement, adequate
directions for use, or a caution statement, as required by the act.
On January 6, 1956, the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Msouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fication of 221 gallon containers, more or less, of "OSAGE SUPERIOR WOOD
PRESERVATIVE CREOSOTE", alleging that the product was an economic
poison, which had been transported interstate by the Osage Paint & Varnish
Company on or about August 19, 1955 from Kansas City, Kansas, in violation
if tha nrtr


I-~4~t


NOTICES






180


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear
directions for use which are necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the
protection of the public.
On March 1, 1956, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to de-
stroy the product.
243. Lack of registration, misbranding and adulteration of "METRO INSECT
POWDER NO. 1 CONTAINS 10% DDT PLUS-PYRETHRUM" and lack
of registration, lack of required information, misbranding and adultera-
tion of "10% METRO DDT INSECTICIDE NO. 1" U. S. v. Julius
Halpern, doing business as Imperial Products Company. Plea of guilty
on Counts 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9
were dismissed. Fined $350.00. (I. F. & R. No. 266. I. D. Nos. 28222,
28223, 28480, and 28481.)
Upon examination, a sample of "5% METRO DDT INSECT.ICIDE NO. 1"
was found to contain 0.60% DDT, instead of 5% of DDT (dichloro diphenyl
trichloroethane) as represented on its label. The product was not registered
under section 4 of the act. The label also failed to bear a correct statement
of net contents, an ingredient statement that complied with the provisions of
the act, and, the directions for use given on the label were not adequate. The
product when used as directed was found to be ineffective for the control of
roaches as was claimed for it. The product was also found to be ineffective
for the control of "all other insect pests" as was claimed on the label.
An examination of 2 samples of "10% DDT INSECTICIDE NO. 1" showed
it to contain 0.61% and 0.00% respectively of DDT (dichloro diphenyl tri-
chloroethane), whereas the label represented it to contain 10% of DDT. The
product was also not registered under section 4 of the act. The labeling for
the product also failed to contain adequate directions for use, an ingredient
statement that complied with the provisions of the act, and adequate directions
for use. The product was also misbranded in other respects.
An examination of the product "METRO INSECT POWDER NO. 1 CONTAINS
10% DDT PLUS-PYRETHRUM" showed that it failed to contain any DDT
(dichlore diphenyl trichloroethane), no pyrethrins and only a trace of piperonyl
cyclohexenone, whereas it was represented to contain 10% of dichloro diphenyl
trichloroethane, .02% of pyrethrins and .25% of piperonyl cyclohexenone. The
product was also found to be ineffective when used as directed for the control of
the insects named or those implied on the labeling. The product was also not
registered under section 4 of the act.
On February 16, 1955, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
District Court an information against Julius Halpern, doing business as Imperial
Products Company, alleging shipments in interstate commerce on or about April
2, 1953 and September 4, 1953, of quantities of "5% METRO DDT INSECTIOIDE


NO. 1," "10% METRO DDT INSECTICIDE NO. 1," and "METRO
POWDER NO. 1 CONTAINS 10% DDT PLUS-PYRETHRUM," from
phia, Pa., to Riverside, N. J., and San Pedro, Calif.
In Count 1 it was alleged that a guaranty given by defendant covering
known as "5% METRO DDT INSECTICIDE NO. 1" and "10% MElT
INSECTICIDE NO. 1" was false.
In Count 2 it was alleged that the product "5% METRO DDT INSE
NO. 1" had not been registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as re
section 4 of the act.
In Count 3 it was alleged that the labels affixed to the product "M54


INSUT
Philad-
Spro d
RO DDET
TICI'DE
TTr illTBE
JhFiT--.i"*L .^-&i AX-lQ*


CTICIDE
quired by
METRO
MtpO~I11
'SwI.M L


II. F~,E. ES, ;J~-~




EE:

Xi

';;;, .g
'"
















F.
/I

I
i""


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


181


In Count 8 it was alleged that certain statements appearing on the labels of
0% DDT INSECTICIDE NO. 1" were false and misleading.
In Count 9 it was alleged that the product "10% DDT INSECTICIDE NO. 1"
was adulterated in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard
or quality under which it was sold.
. In Count 11 it was alleged that the product "METRO INSECT POWDER NO.
1I CONTAINS 10% DDT PLUS-PYRETHRUM" had not been registered with the
Secretary of Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
In Count 11 it was alleged that the product "METRO INSECT POWDER NO.
1 CONTAINS 10% DDT PLUS-PYRETHRUM" was misbranded within the
meaning of the act in that its labeling bore the statements:


"METRO
Insect Powder No. 1
CONTAINS 10%
D. D. T.
Plus-PYRETHRUM
Kills FLIES, ROACHES, BEDBUGS, ANTS, LICE,
SILVERFISH AND OTHER INSECT PESTS


Active Ingredients: Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane
10%, Piperonyl Cyclohexenone .25%, Pyrethrins .02%,
gredients 89.73%


(DDT)
Inert In-


METRO
Insect Powder No. 1
CONTAINS 10% DDT
METRO DDT is the most effective powder compound for destroying
FLIES, ROACHES, BEDBUGS, ANTS, SILVER FISH, LICE AND
OTHER INSECT PESTS.

METRO DDT destroys insects through bodily contact and also by
its toxic character. This product is longlasting. METRO DDT
remains toxic to insects for several weeks.


DIRECTIONS
Dust infested areas thoroughly into cracks and crevices.
this application as long as you find it necessary."


Repeat


and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
(1) that the product contained 10% of dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT),
0.25% of piperonyl cyclohexenone, 0.02% of pyrethrins, and not more than
89.73% of inert ingredients, (2) that the effectiveness of the product would be
<- -- __ 11_ ._-..-; 1 .t f'l\ ^l1 -- L.'L. -_-_ 3__ __ JL __ -1 ^.. .. -_ 1^- _- .:-3 J_ L -..31 ... 1-- 1 1-3 ,'11 J[.ll


B1 251]






182


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND RODENTICIDE


ACT


[ F. R.R NY


In Count 14 it was alleged that the labels affixed to the product "10% DDr
INSECTICIDE NO. 1" did not bear a statement of the net weight or mea
of the contents of the containers.
In Count 15 it was alleged that the product "10% DDT INSEOTICIDE NO. X'
was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its labeling bore the s
ments, "10% DDT ** Active Ingredients 100% Including 10% D.hT.
As recommended by the U. S. Department of Agriculture", and such statements
were false or misleading since they implied or represented that the product
contained 10% of DDT (dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane) and that the product
had been endorsed or recommended by the United States Department of Agri-
culture, whereas the product contained less than 10% of DDT (dichloro diphenyl
trichloroethane) and the product had not been endorsed or recommended by
the United States Department of Agriculture.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labels on its containers did not bear an ingredient state-
ment giving the name and percentage of each active ingredient, together with
the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or in the alternative,
an ingredient statement giving the name of each active ingredient, together with
the name of each and total percentage of any inert ingredients, in the product.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its accompanying labeling did not contain directions for use
which were necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the
public.
In Count 16 it was alleged that the product "10% DDT INSECTICIDE NO. 1"
was adulterated in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard
or quality under which it was sold.
On August 2, 1955, a plea of not guilty was entered. On September 27, 1955,
the plea of not guilty was withdrawn and a plea of guilty was entered as to
Counts 10 through 16, inclusive. On September 27, 1955, a fine of $50.00 on each
of Counts 10 through 16, inclusive, was imposed or a total of $350.00. Counts
1 through 9, inclusive, were dismissed.
244. Lack of registration, lack of required information on labels, and misbrand-
ing of "MOSQUITO BITE BAN" U. S. v. 129 containers, more or less,
of "MOSQUITO BITE BAN." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture
and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 278. I. D. No. 31413.)
The product "MOSQUITO BITE BAN" was not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. An examination showed that the
labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear a statement of net
weight or measure of the content or a proper ingredient statement, as required
by the act.
On September 29, 1955 the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confis-
cation of 129 containers, more or less, of "MOSQUITO BITE BAN" at Mil-
waukee, Wis., alleging that the product was an economic poison, which had been
transported interstate on or about July 18, 1955, from Philadelphia, Pa., by the
Kentrol Corp., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not
comply with the act in that they failed to bear a statement of the net weight or
measure of the content.
It was further alleged that the labels affixed to the containers of the product
did not hnanr n ingrrpdiApnt stamPnt Pivin thhn narns nnd nmrApntbwA of paPh ri


.8:






231-2511


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


183


The product, "GROCER'S SPECIAL PINE OIL DISINFECTANT" was not
registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Upon
examination, the product was found to contain less than 00% active ingredients
and more than 10% inert ingredients.
On March 13, 1956, the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriiculture, filed in the District Court
a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 622 eight-ounce
bottles, more or less, of "GROCER'S SPECIAL PINE OIL DISINFECTANT."
at Hagerstown, Md., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had
been transported interstate on or about October 10, 1955 and January 30, 1956,
by Jeffries Sales Company from Harrisburg, Pa., in violation of the act.


It was alleged
Agriculture as req


that the product w
uired by section 4 of


as not
the act.


It was further alleged that the product,
DISINFECTANT" was misbranded within
labels for the containers stated in part:


registered


with


the Secretary


"GROCER'S SPECIAL PINE OIL
the meaning of the act in that the


"PINE OIL
DISINFECTANT
*


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Steam Distilled Pine Oil
Soap
Isopropyl Alcohol
INERT INGREDIENTS


77. 00%
8.50
4.50
10.00"


which implied that the product met the commercial standard for a pine oil
disinfectant and that the product contained 90% of active ingredients and not


more than
commercial
CS 69-38)
more than
It was fl
of the act
quality as 4


INGREDIENf
ingredients.
On May 11
condemns tion
released to th


10% of in
standard
and the pr
10% of iner
irther alleg
in that its
expressed o


tert ingredi
for a pine
oduct conta
t ingredient!
ed that the
strength or
n its labeling


?nts,
oil d
ined
S.
prod
puri
g, sin


whereas the product did not meet the
isinfectant (U. S. Commercial Standard
less than 90% of active ingredients and

uct was adulterated within the meaning
ity fell below the professed standard or
ice the label bore the statement: "INERT


," whereas the product contained more than 10% of inert


, 1956, no claimant having appeared, a decree of forfeiture and
was entered and the court ordered that the merchandise be
e Maryland Reformatory for Males at Breathedsville, Md.


246. Lack of


registration,


A 70". U. S.
LETHANE A
struction. (I.
The product "10%.
the Federal Insectici
to the containers of
adequate directions


v. 10


&]
D
F
SP


and misbranc
25-lb sacks,
Default decree
R. No. 280. I.
. T. 10% LET
ungicide, and
product did no


for use, or a


wa rnin


ling o
more
ie of
D.No
HANE
Rode
t bear


f "10% D. D. T. 10% LETHANE
or less, of "10% D. D. T. 10%
condemnation, forfeiture and de-
i. 31453.)
E A 70," was not registered under
nticide Act and the labels affixed
the proper ingredient statement,


or caution statement


as is required


by the act.
On December 30, 1955,
of Illinois, acting upon a


United States


District Co


(laa L a n nr II ,it.


the United States Attorney for the Northern District
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
urt a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
- ----- ... -ia n rIr^t 7n n F /ni i nTiiTT A BTTh A r7'1 ft


rs


B,,, L!,,


lo.oo~






184 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I. F. R. N. J.

of the act in that its accompanying labeling did not contain directions for Mie
which are necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of' e" "
pu9-
It was alleged that the product was further misbranted within the
of the act in that its labels did not bear a warning or caution statement which
is necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to :ii n g
and other vertebrate animals.
On February 14, 1956, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was oMer
destroy the product.
247. Misbranding and adulteration of "No. 1 8 GRAINS UNE-VERSAL
CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS," and "No. 2 6 GRAINS*
UNE-VERSAL CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS." U. S. ,& -
nine 85-ounce bottles, more or less, of "No. 1 8 GRAINS ** un
VERSAL CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS," and one hundied
ninety-nine 8.5-ounce bottles, more or less, of "No. 2 6 GRAINS
UNE-VERSAL CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS. Default decree
of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & R. No. 284. i. I.
Nos. 30876 and 30877.)


Upon examination the product "No. 1 8 GRAINS UNE-VERS
CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS" was found to contain less than th
stated amount of mercuric chloride, more than the stated amount of inert f
gredients, and the net weight of the individual tablets was found to be less
than that claimed on the label. The product was also found to contain a
additional active ingredient that was not named in the ingredient state
Upon examination the product, "No. 2 6 GRAINS UNF)VERSAL C


ROSIVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS," was found to contain less than
amount of mercuric chloride, more than the stated amount of inert i
and the net weight of the individual tablets was found to be less
claimed on the label. The product was also found to contain an
active ingredient that was not named in the ingredient statement.
On April 9, 1956, the United States Attorney for the Northern


the stated
ingredients,
than that
additional
District of


California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of fifty-nine 8.5-ounce bottles, more or less, of "No. 1 8 GRAINS *
UNE-VERSAL CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS," and one hundred ninety-


nine 8.5-ounce bottles, more or less, of "N
CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS,"
the products were economic poisons whi
or about February 2, 1956, by Unek Prod
in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product "No.
CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS"
of the act in that the label stated:


o. 2 6 GRAINS UNE-VERSAL
at San Francisco, Calif., alleging that
ch had been transported interstate on
ucts Company from Oconomowoc, Wis.,
1 8 GRAINS UNE-VERSAL
was misbranded within the meaning


"8 GRAINS
**
(Contains 2.0 grains of Mercuric Chloride per tablet)

ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Mercuric Chloride.... --------------------------- 23%
INERT INGREDIENTS .......... ---- 77"
whereas, the product contained less than 23% of mercuric chloride and more
+has m 7n rr ii*d Tn 4inmraroianc 4in 4 inriiial -nhlnta vP f th vanrvnuifn nntainanil







231-251]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


185


2.0 grain
mercuric
It was
CORROS
of the act


s of mercuric chloride, and the product contain
chloride.
alleged that the product "No. 2 6 GRAINS
IVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS" was misbranded
in that its labeling bore the statements:


ted


than 23%


*** UNE-VERSAL
within the meaning


"6 GRAINS


(Contains 3.6 grains of Mercuric Chloride per
*


tablet)


ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Mercuric Chloride .. __.--_.......... 45%
I NERT INGREDIENTS ----- -- -----....55
NET WEIGHT 85 OZS."


whereas,
than 559
less than
less than
It was
CORROS
meaning
gredient


the product contained less than 45% of mercuric chloride and n
F of inert ingredients, the individual tablets of the product contain
3.6 grains of mercuric chloride, and the net weight of the product
8.5 ounces.
alleged that the product, "No. 2 6 GRAINS UNE-VERS
IVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS" was further mislranded within
of the act in that its label did not bear a statement of each active
in the product, since the product contained an active ingredient


lore
ned
was

SAL
the
in-
not


named in the ingredient statement appearing on the label of the product.
It was further alleged that the product "No. 2 6 GRAINS UNE-
VERSAL CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE TABLETS" was adulterated within the
meaning of the act in that its strength of purity fell below the professed stand-
ard or quality as expressed on its labeling, since its labeling bore the state-
ments: "Contains 3.6 grains of Mercuric Chloride per tablet" and "Mercuric
Chloride 45%," whereas, the individual tablets of the product contained
less than 3.6 grains of mercuric chloride, and the product contained less than
45%. of mercuric chloride.
On June 7, 1956, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy


the products.


248. Misbranding of "K-9 GUARDIAN COLLAR" Units and "K-9 GUARDIAN
FLEA KILLER OINTMENT Wt. 1 oz." U. S. v. 213 "K-9 GUARD-
IAN COLLAR" Units, more or less, and 67 containers, more or less, labeled
"K-9 GUARDIAN FLEA KILLER OINTMENT Wt. 1 oz." Con-


sent decree
287. I. D. Na
The product "K-
and one container
MENT Wt.
OINTMENT *
examination, the nD


KILLER OINTM
OINTMENT *
labels.


On J
acting


1'
4t


ENT
* lI'
d am


condemnation and release under bond. (I. F. & R. No.
, 31695 and 31698.)
GUARDIAN COLLAR" Units consisted of one dog collar
Ibeled in part "K-9 GUARDIAN FLEA KILLER OINT-
oz." The product "K-9 GUARDIAN FLEA KILLER
't. 1 oz." were separate containers of the ointment. Upon
weights of the containers of the "K-9 GUARDIAN FLEA


* Wt. 1 oz."
oz." were found


and "K-9 GUARDIAN FLEA KILLER
to be less than those claimed on the


uly 12, 1956, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts,
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States


District Court a li
"K-9 GUARDIAN
llerin-cr thot 4-Th


bel
FLE
rinrflt


praying seizure for condemnation and c
2A KILLER OINTMENT Wt. 1 oz.'
ini a o Qora annnmun nnnr nn nann nvhinC ho


confiscation of 213
'at Boston, Mass.,
hsi ft-v TI anrwfnA


v


P






186 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I. F.R.N.J.

Guardian Industries, In., of New York, N. Y., claimed ownership of the
products, requested their release under bond for the purpose of bringing the
products into compliance with the act and consented to the entry of a condemna'-
tion decree. On July 27, 1956, a decree of condemnation was entered and he
products were released to the claimant under bond.
249. Lack of registration and misbranding of "KAYLORITE GREEN SAND NO.
1." U. S. U. 224 80-pound bags, more or less, of "KAYLORITE GREEN
SAND NO. 1." Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond:
(I. F. &R. No. 269. I. D. No. 30133.)
The product "KAYLORITE GREEN SAND NO. 1" was not registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examination of the
product showed that the labels affixed to the containers did not bear a proper
ingredient statement or adequate directions for use.
On November 11, 1954, the United States Attorney for the Eastern Dist
of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation
confiscation of 224 80-pound bags, more or less, of "KAYLORITE GREEN
NO. 1" at Elverson, Pa., alleging that the product was an economic poison whk
had been transported interstate on or about October 19, 1954, by the Kaylorite
Corporation from Dunkirk, Md., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning t
act in that the labels did not bear a proper ingredient statement giving the name
and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total p
centage of the inert ingredients, or an ingredient statement giving the names
of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the descending order
of the percentage of each present in each classification, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients.
It was further alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labeling accompanying the product did not contain directions
for use which are necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection
of the public.
Samuel S. Sweigart, Elverson, Pa., claimed ownership of the product, requested
its release under bond for the purpose of removing the product from the require-
ments of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. On February
2, 1956, a consent decree of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered by the
court that the product be released to the claimant under bond.
250. Lack of registration and misbranding of "KITTY'S KORNER SANITARY
CAT LITTER." U. S. v. 199 5-pound containers, 1,850 10-pound containers,
and 520 25-pound containers, more or less, of "KITTY'S KORNER SAN-
ITARY CAT LITTER." Consent decree of condemnation and release
under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 288. I. D. No. 3179S. )
The product "KITTY'S CORNER SANITARY CAT LITTER" was not regis-
tered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An exami-
nation of the product showed that the label affixed to the containers did not
bear a satisfactory ingredient statement and when tested, it was found that the
product was misbranded in other respects.
On August 2, 1956, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
filed in the United States District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemna-
tion and confiscation of 199 5-pound containers, 1,850 10-pound containers. and
520 25-poun containers, more or less, of "KITTY'S KORNER SANITARY CAT







231-251]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


187


It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labeling stated:
(Bag label)

Kitty's
Korner
Sanitary
CAT LITTER

CONTAINS
X 60 *
*DISINFECTANT
*DEODORANT
*GERMICIDE


The Most Effective
Additive for a Cat Litter
*KILLS ABSORBED BACTERIA *DEODORIZES
*WORKS PERFECTLY IN ALL TEMPERATURES
X60 is a proved, widely used sanitizer compound, non-toxic to
animals and humans, which extensive tests have shown to be the
most effective additive developed for a cat litter. Only Kitty's
Korner contains X60.
*


Only K
contact
Korner'!
granule!
quickly
instant


itty's Korner c
objectionable
s clean, dustl
s provide mill
soak up moist
contact with ex


contains
odor-dev'
ess, ca
ions of
ure awnd
creations


highly
'eloping
refully
highly
bring


effective X60
absorbed ba
controlled,
absorbent
bacteria-destr


which kills on
cteria. Kitty's
u niformly-sized
surfaces which
*oying X60 into


DIRECTIONS
Pour Kitt3's Korner into a suitable container to an even depth of at
least one inch, preferably two ro three inches.


(Display labeling)


Kitty's
Korner


CONTAINS






188 INSECTICIDE, TUNGTCIDE, AND RODENTTCIDE ACT I. i. x

compliance with the act and consented to the entry of :a cndemnti"
On September 6, 1956 a decree of condemnation was entered and it was or
deredi that the condemned product be released to the claimant unde phd
251. Lack of registration of "ANT-GO" "GUARD-ALL SPRAY," and "25%
DDT EMULSIFIABLE FOR USE IN HOME GARDENS-NURSflhR
GREENHOUSES." U. S. v. 189 2-ounce containers, more ore
"ANT-GO," 44 4-ounce containers, more or less, of "GUARD-ALL
SPRAY," and 23 1-pint containers, more or less, of "25% DDT EiMULt.
FIABLE FOR USE IN HOME GARDENS-NURSERIES-GREENi


HOUSES." Default
(I. F. & R. No. 286.


decree of condemnation, forfeiture and destructita
I. D. Nos. 32151, 32154, and 32155.)


The products "ANT-GO," "GUARD-ALTA SPRAY," and "25% DDT EM
SIFIABLE FOR USE IN HOME GARDENS-NURSERIES-GREENHOUSES,"
were not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentieds
Act.
On June 22, 1956, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Ala-
bama, Northern Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agrielture,
filed in the United States District Court a libel praying seizure for conde-
tion and confiscation of 189 2-ounce containers, more or less, of "ANT-GO," 4
4-ounce containers, more or less, of "GUARD-ALL SPRAY," and 28 1-pint co-
tainers, more or less, of "25% DDT EMULSIFIABLE FOR USE IN HOER
GARDENS-NURSERIES-GREENHOUSES," at Montgomery, Ala., alleging that
the products were economic poisons which had been transported interstate o
or about January 13, 1956 and March 12, 1956, by Re-Mark Chemical Company,
Inc., from Miami, Fla., in violation of the act
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On July 30, 1956, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was instructed to destroy
the products.


-ii~




:i~ill~










INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 231-251


N. J. No.


Ant-Go
Re-Mark Chemical Co., Inc-
Barco Aldrin Equivalent 2 23%0
Emulsifiable Concentrate
Barco Chemicals, Inc----
Barco DDT 50% Wettable Powder
Barco Chemicals, Inc .-.


Barco Dieldrin 15%
Concentrate
Barco Chemical.
Barco IE 44. 2,4-D
44% Isopropyl Es
able Concentrate
Barco Chemicale
Barco Lindane 25'
Powder


251


231


Emulsifiable


MA


s, Inc---....... 231
Weed Killer
ter Emulsifi-

, Inc.---- 231
%7 Wettable


Barco Chemicals, Inca. .
Barco Toxaphene 6(0% Emulsifi-
able Concentrate Contains 6
Lbs. Toxaphene per Gallon
Barco Chemicals, Inc---


Barco 12% Gamma BHO Wet-
table Powder
Barco Chemicals, Inc-
Bugmaster Crystals Model G
Southern National Manufac-
turing Co.-.. .o.
Bugmaster Crystals Model H
Southern National Manufac-
turing Co-..__.. -
Chlordane 20-1


Universal Laboratories, Inc-
Dalamar-X Fly Killer
Fly Doom, Inc.--------
Grocer's Special Pine Oil Dis-
i nfecta n t
Jeffries Sales Co ------
Guard-All Spray
Re-Mark Chemical Co., Inc-.
Hi-Hat Moth Proofing Solution
Tops Mothproofing, Inc -
K-9 Guardian Collar


231


231


240


240


233


251

237


The Peter Bobjohn Corp.... 248
K-9 Guardian Flea Killer Oint-
ment
The Peter Bobjohn Corp 248


Ma(


N. J. No.
Koos Badger Brand 24% Aldriu
Equivalent Emulsifiable Con-
centrate
Barco Chemicals, Inc .. _- 239
Metro Insect Powder No. 1 Con-
tains 10% DDT Plus-Pyreth-


rum
Julius Halpern, doing busi-
ness as Imperial Prod-
ucts Co---------- 243
odel G Commercial Bugmaster
Southern National Manu-
facturing Co -------240
odel H Bugmaster
Southern National Manu-
facturing Co- ------_ 240


Mosquito
Kent
No. 1
Versal
Tablets
Unek
No. 2
Versal I
Tablets
Unek


Bite Ban
rol Corp .---.-----244
8 Grains Une-
Corrosive Sublimate

Products Co ----- 247
6 Grains Une-
Corrosive Sublimate


Products


Co ----- 247


eserva-


lish


Co_- 242


ng Co..- 241
nimum
by the


Inc------ 232
nt No. 4
, Inc-. 232
Fly Killer
r l-- 236
?or Electric


h


Osage Superior Wood Pr
tive Creosote
Osage Paint & Varr
Patty-O-Candle
Empire Manufacturi
Pine Oil Disinfectant Mi
Phenol Coefficient of 4


Method
S& McGuire.
Disinfecta
& McGuire.
Dalamarx
om, Inc---
Sterilizer f


F. D. A.
Baird
Pine Oil
Baird
Refill for
Fly Do
Remington


Shavers
Remington Rand Inc----- 234
Sasco Flor-Cote Heavy Duty
Liquid Buffing Wax Killdee
Weed Killer


Co--------. -- 238
10% Lethane A 70
Color & Chemical
._- ---------246


S and S
10% D. D. T.
Kentucky
Co


t


J


1





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
111 D III 11 11 f11111111 l II
3 1262 08588 8336


j Ei ,~4~1~E~


.;r0 .elicroiid "Is(:is5: ~r;~i~~sl;~I~

'::":;"x I,"II""I:"":I" ~iii~EjllF"I~: