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

.3


S..
:.i -:
:1.'i sJ


,l u~x
H
ia:4

.4L~


253-279


AGRICULTURAL


Issued September 1958


OF


RESEARCH


AGRICULTURE


SERVICE


PLANT PEST CONTROL DIVISION


MENT


UNDER


THE


RODENTICIDE ACT

252-270


INSECTICIDE,


hCIDE, AND


Nos.


ronowzig ntice judgment relate to cases arising in the United States
courts approved for publication as provided in section 6 of
.. I .ngicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U. S. C. 135d).
B. T. S aw,
Administrator, Agricultural Research Service.
. WASHIxCeGTN, D. C., Mcy 15, 1958.


Lack of registration and misbranding of "CEDAR.
AROMATIC RED CEDAR." U. S. v. 599 1-pound b
and 300 5-pound bags, more or less, of "CEDARI
AROMATIC RED CEDAR." Consent decree of
release of the product under bond for the purpose
compliance with the act. (I. F. & R. No. 303. I. D.


-SEAL GENUINE
rags, more or less,
-SEAL GENUINE
condemnation and
of bringing it into
No. 34086.)


he product "CEDAR-SEAL GENUINE AROMATIC RED CEDAR" was not
.. Stered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and
.. .t label failed to bear an ingredient statement.
On November 6, 1957, the United States Distric .Att efor the Northern
i vlIuison of the Middle District of Alabama, a* Hn airport by the Sec-
retary of Agriculture, filed in the United St Dit-a 4ibel praying
,;Issure. for condemnation and confiscation oundba and OO 5-pound
iSgs. -more or less, of "CEDAR-SEAL GEN AROMATIC ID CEDAR" at
Jflontgomery, Ala., alleging that the produ s economic poison Ihich had
S'ut.-rnsported interstate by Cedar-Se pFonon or abdut September
i. 1957 from Decherd, Tenn., in violation act.
H:>r ?was alleged that the product was registeredd with the. Secretary of
ii.i Iieulture as required by section 4 of the *
qu. t It was alleged that the product was mis d in that the labI'e.bone by the
p :rbduct did not bear an ingredient state. g the nae and percentage
'.ia Mieach of the active ingredients, together wit -pe7c tAge of the inert
,:;: '; idien.ts,- or an ingredient statement giving .l aals a of the active


STATES DEPARTMENT


CI
1J~


FEDERAL







192 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODEN 1CThitAk -.{.LR.N.J. *,

253. Lack of registration and misbranding of "CEDAR CLOSET SPRAY." U. S,
v. 1,418 containers, more or less, of "CEDAR CLOSET SPRAY." Consent
decree of condemnation and release of the product under bond. (I. F.
& R. No. 307. I. D. No. 34205.)
The product "CEDAR CLOSET SPRAY" was not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product .
showed that the label affixed to the containers did not bear an ingredient state-
ment. The product was also misbranded in that the label bore a false or mis-
leading statement.
On January 7, 1958, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of .
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the i
United States District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of 1,418 containers, more or less, of "CEDAR CLOSET SPRAY" at
New York, N. Y., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had
been transported interstate by Aerosol Methods on or about October 30, 1957,
from Norristown, Pa., in violation of the act.
It was alleged-that the product was not registered with the Secretary of :;


AgrienIture. as required under section 4 of the act.
It was aUeged that the product was misbranded in th


product did not
of each of the ac
gredients, or an
and each of the
each present in
inert ingredients.
It was alleged
of the act in that


It the label borne by the


bear an ingredient statement giving the name and percentage
tive ingredients, together with the total percentage of inert in-
ingredient statement giving the names of each of the active
inert ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of
each classification, together with the total percentage of the


that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
the label stated in part:
"A product of
THE ANDRE L. RICHARD CO. INC.
-J~ -i rr U -E fler -.


which statement was false or misleading, since it implied or represented that
The Andre L. Richard .Co.,. Inc., was the manufacturer of the product, whereas
The Andre L. Richard Co., Inc., was not the manufacturer of the product.
The Andre L. Richard Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., claimed ownership of the
product and requested its release under bond, for the purpose of removing it
from the requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act.
On February 28, 1958, a consent decree of condemnation was entered and it
was ordered by the Court that the product be released to the claimant under
bond.
254. Lack of required information on the label, misbranding and adulteration
of "KER-DAN 45% CHLORDANE"; and lack of registration and lack of
required information on the labels of "KER-DAN DDT CONCENTRATE
OIL SOLUBLE 25% TECHNICAL". U. S. v. one 55-gallon drum, more
or less, of "KER-DAN 45% CHLORDANE", and two 55-gallon drums,
more or less, of "KER-DAN DDT CONCENTRATE OIL SOLUBLE 25%
TECHNICAL". Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture and detruc- i
tion. (I. F. & R. No. 290, I. D. Nos. 32623 and 32624.) ;
The product "KER-DAN 45% CHLORDANE" was misbranded and adulterated
in that tha lahbl fnr tha nrndnnt pnaimedl a tophnirnl ph lrdlnnap rnt-nt nf d4-'


.






352-270]


NOTICES


JUDGE T


*8%31UBLE 25% TECHNICAL," at Indianola, Miss., alleging
q..re economic poisons which had been transported interstate
'if, ,1954, June 23, 1955, and June 15, 1956, froh Montgomery,
Products in violation of the act.
.t was alleged that the label affixed to the container of
6ltJORDAJNE" did not.comply with the act, in that it failed ti
' f t'the net weight or measure of the content.
.It was further alleged that the product "KER-DAN 45% C]
misbranded within the meaning of the adt, in that its label sti


193

that the products
on or about June
Ala., bty iK -Dan


FN AL flitBL~-
F~u~asaw'atar


KER-DAN
45%
CHLORDANE


ACTIVE INGREDIEIfS:
Technical chl ordane*,.- -.-..... ..
Petroleum Distillate~ ............
INERT INGREDIENTS -.-.-.-


*Octachlor-4,
pounds


7-Methano-tetradroindane


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


18%


related


45%
49%
6%
com-


which implied that the product contained 45% of technical chlordane,
the product contained substantially less than 45% technical chlordane.
It was alleged, that the product "KER-DAN DDT CONCENTRA'
SOLUBLE 25% fECHNICAL" was not registered with the Secretary
culture, as required by section 4 of the act.
It was further alleged that the labels affixed to the containers of the
KEER-DAN nDlT CONCENTRATE OIL SOLUBLE 255%" did not com]
t1e act in thi7 they failed to bear a statement of the net weight or me
the content.
On Novex6ber 23, 1956, no claimant having appeared, a decree of col
tion and fetfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was or
destroy tit products.


255. Lact of registration of "ALCATRAZ
T:VE DARK BROWN." U. S. v. twi
.re-gallon containers, and three 55
ALCATRA2 NUMBER 100 WOOD
Cnseent decree of condemnation and
,. 2A2. I. D. No. 31394.)


t product
WN" waEs
'eBicIde Act
'On FebrUAry
..ting upon a ri
,. District Court
... enty-tiree ox
mallon eontaine]
RARVA.FFIVET


whereas

TE OIL
of Agri-

product
ply with
sure of

odemna-
dered to


NUMBER 100 WOOD PRESERVA-
enty-three one-gallon containers, six
-gallon containers, more or less, of
PRESERVATIVE DARK BROWN."
release under bond. (I. F. & R. No.


"ALCATRAZ NUMBER 100 WOOD PRESERVATIVE DARK
not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

24, 1956, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
a libel prayirig seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
le-gallon containers, six five-gallon containers, and three 55-
rs, more or less, of "ALCATRAZ NUMBER 100 WOOD PRE-
AfR'I RRfITWNIT" aat Wachinatnin T l. nlloincr that [the, nrnlrno *







194 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [L...N .. N.

256. Lack of registration of "SHOO-FLY HORNET EAR-WIG JET BOM]*
"HARI KARI KILLS JAPANESE BEETLES," and "HARI KARI FLO.
BOMB." US. v. 34 14-ounce containers, more or less, of "SHOO-FLT
HORNET EAR-WIG JET BOMB," 235 1-pound containers, more or less, I
of "HARI. KARI KILLS JAPANESE BEETLES," and 70 14-ounce con-
tainers, more or less, of "HARI KARI FLOWER BOMB." Consent decree i
eo condemnation with respect to "SHOO-FLY HORNET EAR-WIG JET
BOMB": and "HARI KARI FLOWER BOMB." Default decree of con-
demnation and forfeiture with respect to "HARI KARl KILLS JAP-
ANESE BEETLES. (I. F. & R. No. 292. I. D. Nos. 32729, 32730 and .

The products "SHOO-FLY HORNET EAR-WIG JET BOMB," "HARI KARI .
KILLS JAPANESE BEETLES," and "HARI KARI FLOWER BOMB" were "
not registered-under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On October 31, 1956, the Unt Attorney for the Distrit
Island, a .ctig upon a report by the Sretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscatin
of 34 14rounc containers, more or less, of "SHOO-FLY HORNET EAR-WIG
JET BQMB," 235 1-pound containers, more or less of "HARI KARI KILLS 4;
JAPA3SE BEETLES," and 70 14-ounce containers, more or less, of "HARI
KABRI fOWER BOMB" at Providence, R. I., alleging that the products were
economic poisons which had been transported interstate on or about May 31,
1956, an Jnu S27, 1956, by Lynwood Laboratories from Norwood, MaR~~J .


violation of the act.


It was alleged that the products were not registered with th4
agriculture grtmrl etr section 4 of the act.
Lyiwood if~eiles4 Norwood, Mass., claimed ownership ol
but n -answer iis filed within the time required as provided b:
quent to sei w'e the claimait brought into compliance with the a<
"SHOOWlY HrORNI T E WIG r BOMB," and "HARI KR
BOM B."
OB ri dr1957 dthe o lrA he products "SHOO-FLY H
On Aprl 4, 1 the co or
WIG YJ B(MB" and "HtEKARl LOWER BOMB" be r
claimant after payment of court costs and fees and that the
Marshal distrib te the product "HARI KARI KILLS JAPA.NES
to one or mTepiI or charitable institutions.


e Secretary of
f the products
r law. Subse-
:t the products
LRI FLOWER


:ORNET EAR-
eleased to the
United States
E BEETLES"


257. Misbranding of "PURITRON." U. S. v. 49 devices, more or less, labeled
"PURITRON." Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond.
iL 2 1. ,l. 32369.)
The product MPURIhtO3~ was misbranded within the meaning of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act in that the labeling for the product
bore false and misleading statements.
On November 9, 1956, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
of Illinois, acting up a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United Sates sitt-rit Opurt, a libel praying seizure for condemnation aand
confiscation of 49 devices, r r less, labeled "PURITRON," at Chicago, Ill,
alleging that the product was a device which had been transported interstate
on or about A 10, 1956, by Ozo Sales Corp. from New Haven, Conn., is
violation of te act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that its labeling- ore the statepets .




:li
EU.S
1*SATOI3


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


195


ALLERGY SUFFERERS
S. -Puritron gives welcome relief as the air in
the room is drawn over a series of ultra-violet
lamps and a fiberglass filter to eliminate pollens
and kill airborne bacteria.
KILLS DISEASE BACTERIA
The air in the room is drawn into the Puritron
and passed over Westinghouse ultra-violet, germi-
cidal lamps, eliminating airborne germs.
FILTERS AND CIRCULATES
After the air passes the germ-killing ultra-violet
lamps, it is forced through a special fiberglass
filter back into the room, free of dust and pollens.
*
PURITRON IN THE BASEMENT
ELIMINATES THE ODORS OF MIL-
DEW AND DAMPNESS .
PURITRON kills the bacteria that causes
mildew.
*,"


(Tag Label)


* *


PURITRON
REMOVES ODORS & SMOKE
*
KILLS DISEASE BACTERIA
*


The air in the room is drawn into the Puritron
and passed over ultra-violet lamps, eliminating
airborne germs!
After the air passes the germ-killing ultra-violet
lamps, it is forced through a special fiberglass fil-
ter back into the room, free of dust and pollens.
The Puritron changes the air in a 20' x 20' room
five times an hour.
,,


which statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented:
(1) that the devices contained germicidal lamps; and (2) that the devices, when
^. used as directed, would (a) kill all air-borne bacteria, (b) kill the bacteria
Which caused mildew, (c) eliminate air-borne germs, (d) kill disease bacteria,
and (e) prevent the spread of disease germs; whereas, (1) the devices did not
,:''. contain germicidal lamps; and (2) the devices, when used as directed, would
: not (a) kill all air-borne bacteria, (b) kill the bacteria which caused mildew,
(c) eliminate air-borne germs, (d) kill disease bacteria, or (e) prevent the
spread of disease germs.
':7 4'4H1.fw Tln'nnlW fn.r (T'*hTin,, Til n fl,,la,,na nrniarn eP htha n' Tr w,,i" an'i'







196


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. Bt. 3..


examinattol
statement.
On April
California,
United Sta
confiscation
SET" at Sa
which had


n of the label for the product


showed that it did not bear an ingredient


2, 1957, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
tes District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and
[ of 35 sets, more or less, of "DAY 'N NITER SLEEP AND PLAY
n Francisco, Calif., alleging that the product was an economic poison
been transported interstate on or about January 23, 1957, by S & R


Infants Wear Co., Inc., fr
It was alleged that tl
Agriculture as required u
It was alleged that th
the product did not bear
of each of the active i
inert ingredients, or an
active and each of the i
centage of each present i
of the inert ingredients.
It was further alleged
stated in part:


om New York, N. Y., in violation
he product was not registered
nder section 4 of the act.
.e product was misbranded in
an ingredient statement giving
ingredients, together with the


of the act.
with the


Secretary of


that the label borne by
the name and percentage
total percentage of the


ingredient statement giving the names of each of the
inert ingredients in the descending order of the per-
n each classification, together with the al pierce

that the product was misbranded in that the labeling


"*t *,r


NEW! THIS SET IS 'T!

BACTERIA-FREE .
DBODORIZIG
DAY 'N NT
SLEEP AND PLAY
In Wonderlure Knit


rDEEKLEEN'


SELF-STERILIZING


SET *
Terry


44* :


'TYDEEKLEEN'*
processed garments
protect your baby's
health, .
'TYDEEKLEEN'
means this garment is
Bacteriostatic, in fact...
ACTIVELY ANTISEP-

A guarantee of hygienic
cleanliness. Rigid U. S.
Government testing
methods Prove that "Ty-
deekleen' garments resist
bacterial contamination.
*'Tydeekleen' is labora-
tory tested and proved.


it~X


S.~:~ "


,*'
*~ I"


,; z@ d:


*iesf-t~) i


IS GUARAN-

* SELF-


* ACTIVELY ANTISEPTIC "
SELF-STERILIZING .
SELF-DEODORIZING

SELF-STERILIZING i'
A strong protective bar-
rier. As rapidly as causes
of bacterial contain
come in contact with the
treated fabric, the offend-
ing agents are eliminated.


npteasant oi1 orus a
stopped-'Tydeebleen' gar-
ments inhibit bacterial -
growth, so eliminate bac-
terial decomposition odors.


processed ga rment'protect
your baby's health ..
'TYDEEKLEEN' I


e; :E" ;EjEEE""E~
; "" i~-r;rr;,


(


IT






252-270]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


197


SELF-STERI LIVING
A strong protective bar-
rier. As rapidly as causes
of bacterial contamination
come in contact with the
treated fabric, the offend-
ing agents are eliminated.
SELF-DEODORIZING
Unpleasant odors are
stopped-'Tydeekleen' gar-
ments inhibit bacterial
growth, so eliminate bac-
terial decomposition odors.

'TYDEEKLEEN'
processed garments
Guard your Baby's Health
'TYDEEKLEEN'
A symbol .A Guarantee
of protection and health.
TESTED AND PROVED
By U. S. Government ap-
proved laboratories.


,
and such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
(1) that the product was bacteria-free, self-sterilizing and actively antiseptic,
(2) that the product would prevent the growth of bacteria, (3) that the product
would eliminate bacteria which come in contact with the treated fabric, (4)
that the product would protect babies from infectious bacteria, and (5) that
United States Government testing methods had proved that the product would
resist bacterial contamination; whereas, (1) the product was not bacteria-free,
self-sterilizing or actively antiseptic, (2) the product would not prevent the
growth of bacteria, (3) the product would not elinimate bacteria which come
in contact with the treated fabric, (4) the product would not protect babies
from infectious bacteria, or (5) United States Government testing methods
had not proved that the product would resist bacterial contamination.
On April 23, 1957, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.
259. Lack of registration of "ALCATRAZ NUMBER 100 WOOD PRESERVA-
TIVE .DARK BROWN." U. S. v. six 55-gallon containers, more or lqs,
of "ALCATRAZ NUMBER 100 WOOD PRESERVATIVE DARK BROWN."
Consent decree of condemnation. (I. F. & R. No. 291. I. D. No. 32912.)


The product "ALCATRAZ NUMBER 100 WOOD PRESERVATIVE DARK
BROWN" was not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act.
On October 30, 1956 the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
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 six
55-gallon containers, more or less, of "ALCATRAZ NUMBER 100 WOOD PRE-
SERVATIVE DARK BROWN" at Washington, D. C., alleging that the product
was an economic poison which had been transported interstate on or about
notnhar 9 lQRft hv Thh Alontrns. ton Tnio._ from Richmond. Va.. in violation of


:It



Ar.
H...
H:i


I~ii~"a:"iiii71 liFX"E:I""E" "" """r;r""






198

260.


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT [LT.B.t..:
3G:i


Lack of registration and misbranding of "GENUINE MIST OF CEDAR .
MOTH REPELLENT." U. S. v. 266 containers, more or less, of "GEND-
INE MIST OF CEDAR MOTH REPELLENT." Default decree d
condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 294. I. D.
No. 32100.)


The product "GENUINE MIST OF CEDAR


not registered under the
An examination of the pr
did not bear an ingredient


On March 27, 1957, 1
New York, acting upo]
United States District
fiscation of 266 contain'
MOTH REPELLENT"
economic poison which
1956, by Spritz, Inc., f
It was alleged that
Agriculture as required


the
n a
Com
ers,
at
haq
ron
the


* MOTH REPELLENT" was


Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
oduct showed that the label affixed to the containers
statement.
United States Attorney for the Southern District of
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
irt a libel praying seizure for condemnation and' con-
more or less, of "GENUINE MIST OF CEDAR *
New York, N. Y., alleging that the product was an
d been transported interstate on or about November 2,
n Cleveland, Ohio in violation of the act.
i product was not registered with the Secretary of


by section 4 of the act.


It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the label borne by 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 _I
each present in each classification, together with the total percent
inert ingredients.
On September 10, 1957, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to.
destroy the product.
261. Lack of registration of "PHOENIX BRAND DDD 5," "PHOENIX BRAND .
MALATOX 3.5 WITH 50% SULPHUR," "PHOENIX BRAND MALATOX .
3.5" and PARATHIONN EC-45 EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE." U.. "
v. seven 50-pound bags, more or less, of "PHOENIX BRAND DDD 5";
six 50-pound bags, more or less, of "PHOENIX BRAND MALATOX 3.i
WITH 50% SULPHUR"; ten 50-pound bags, more or less, of "PHOENIX
BRAND MALATOX 3.5"; and four I-gallon containers, more or less,f .
PARATHIONN EC-45 EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE." Default de-
cree of condemnation and forfeiture. (I. F. & R. No. 297. I. D. Nos. i
33438, 33440, 33441, and 33442.) )
The products "PHOENIX BRAND DDD 5," "PHOENIX BRAND MALATOX
3.5 WITH 50% SULPHUR," "PHOENIX BRAND MALATOX 3.5" and "PARA-
THION EC-45 EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" were not registered under ;
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On May 1, 1957, the United States Attorney for the Southern 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 eoa ;;;
fiscation of seven 50-pound bags, more or less, of "PHOENIX BRAND DDD 5",
six 50-pound bags, more or less, of "PHOENIX BRAND MALATOX 3.5 WIErt .
80% SULPHUR"; ten 50-pound bags, more or less, of "PHOENIX BRAND MAL- .L
ATOX 3.5"; and four 1-gallon containers, more or less, of "PARATHION EC-46
EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE" at El Centro, Calif., alleging that the prod-
ucts were economic poisons which had been transported interstate on or about
January 11, 1957, March 2, 1957, and March 21, 1957, from Yuma, Aria, by..






2b2.-2?OJ


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


199


'262. Lack of registration of "DU-O-CIDE ROSE & FLOWER DUST," "SCALE-
O-KIL X," and "CHLOR-THANE SPRAY CONCENTRATE." U. S. v.
141 eight-ounce containers, more or less, of "DU-O-CIDE ROSE &
FLOWER DUST"; 35 one-pint containers, more or less, of "SCALE-O-
KIL X"; and 7 one-gallon containers, more or less, of "CHLOR-THANE
SPRAY CONCENTRATE." Consent decree of condemnation. (I. F. &
R. No. 298. I. D. Nos. 33464,33465, and 33466.)
The products "DU-O-CIDE ROSE & FLOWER DUST," "SCALE-O-KIL X,"
-and "CHLOR-THANE SPRAY CONCENTRATE" were not registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On May 10, 1957, the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, 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 141 eight-
ounce containers, more or less, of "DU-O-CIDE ROSE & FLOWER DUST"; 35
one-pint containers, more or less, of "SCALE-O-KIL X"; and 7 one-gallon con-
tainers, more or less, of "CHLOR-THANE SPRAY CONCENTRATE" at Phoenix,
Ariz., alleging that the products were economic poisons which had been trans-
ported interstate on or about April 9, 1957 by R. L. Chacon Chemical Co., from
:South Gate, 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 act.
Subsequent to seizure, the products were registered under the Federal Insecti-
-cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the R. L. Chacon Chemical Co., South
-Gate, Calif., claimed ownership of the products.
On July 3, 1957, a consent decree of condemnation was entered and the prod-
ucts were released to the claimant.
263. Lack of registration and misbranding of "CRO-PAX FOAM LATEX IN-
SOLES." U. S. v. 243 bags, more or less, each containing 12 pairs of
"CRO-PAX FOAM LATEX INSOLES." Consent decree of condemnation


and release under bond.


(I. F. & R. No. 299.


D


The product "CRO-PAX FOAM LATEX INSOLES" was
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
the product showed that the label affixed to the contain
ingredient statement. The product was misbranded in
-claims-which were false or misleading.
On June 3, 1957, the United States Attorney for the
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of
the United States District Court, a libel praying seizui
and confiscation of 243 bags, more or less, each containing 1
FOAM LATEX INSOLES" at McKeesport, Pa., alleging
*economic poison which had been transported interstate o
1957 by Forest City Products, Inc., from Cleveland, Ohio i
It was alleged that this product was not registered w


. No. 33817.)
not registered under
An examination of
ers did not bear an
that its label bore


Western District of
Agriculture, filed in
re for condemnation
2 pairs of "CRO-PAX
the product was an
n or about April 29,
i violation of the act.
ith the Secretary of


Agriculture as required under section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that the label borne by the product did not bear an ingredient state-
ment 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, to-
gether with the total percentage of the inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
-of the act in that the label stated in nart:






200


INSECTICIDE,


1. Sub-du is
germs


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


Miracle
Sub-dun*
Provides
ROUND-THE-CLOCK
FOOT PROTECTION
because:
an anti-microbial formula which
on feet, in stockings and shoes.


3. Sub-du's gentle anti-bacterial action
freshness and true cleanliness.
4. Sub-du* is an anti-bacterial and a
It protects against Athlete's F
shoes.


con'


safely provide


nti-fungal
'oot and


(At
its r


*.
Sub-du* achieves the ultimate in foot hygie

and such statements were false or misleading. since the:
sented; (1) that the product would destroy bacteria; (2
could be relied upon to protect against athlete's foot an
shoes; and (3) that the product would provide continual
foot infection; whereas (1) the product would not destroy


ACT


.m .. *^I
H.
i: ii.

[I.F.LN. .-
T. wiiii


UE::


stantly fghts ...Xi


* lasting foot i

hlete's Foot). *
e-infection in


ne

y implied or repre-
I) that the product
d its reinfection in
L protection against
y bacteria; (2) the


product could not be relied upon to protect against athlete's i
reinfection in shoes; and (3) the product would not provide co
section against foot infection.
rarest City Products, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio claimed ownership of
and requested its release under bond for the purpose of removing
from the requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

On September 17, 1957, a consent decree of condemnation was
it was ordered by the Court that the product be released to t
under bond.


loot and it ..
ntinual pro-

the product 7.
the product 1
Rodenticide

entered and ,..
he claimant


264. Misbranding and adulteration of "NU-PINE." U. S. v. 11,997 one-punt
bottles, more or less, and 200 one-gallon containers, more or less, of
"NU-PINE." Consent decree of condemnation and release under bomu
(I. F. & R. No. 300. I. D. No. 33390.)
The product "NU-PINE" was misbranded in .that its labeling bore statement
which were false or misleading. The product was adulterated within the
meaning of the act in that its labeling claimed a phenol coefficient of 5, whereas
upon examination, it was found to have a coefficient of 0.
On June 10, 1957, the United States .Attorney for the Southern District cf'
Florida, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and cont
fiscation of 11,997 one-pint bottles, more or less, and 200 one-gallon contained
more or less, of "NU-PINE," at Miami, Fla., alleging that the product was an
economic poison which had been transported interstate on or about. May 6, 1957
by Freeman Products Corp., from Jackson, Miss., in violation of the:act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of th*
act in that its labeling stated in part:


S.
7T7 flrt fli


9..,


I.:-






252-270]'


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


201


BABY CLOTHES




BATH ROOM:



DISINFECTING
SICK ROOMS:


Wash baby diapers with 3 tab
PINE per gallon of water for a
sweet smelling clean garment.
and stop odors from play pens,
etc., use 2 tablespoons NU-PINE
water.


lespoons NU-
hygienically,
To sanitize
buggy, cribs,
to a quart of


A few drops of NU-PINE will clean and de-
odorize toilet bowl. To clean toilet seat, lava-
tory, etc., use a cup NU-PINE per gallon of
water. Use % cup full strength on shower
floor to check athlete's foot.
Add % cup of NU-PINE to a gallon of soapy
water when washing bedroom vessels, brushes,
silverware, bedding, towels, furniture, floors,
etc.


and..such statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
(1) that the product had a phenol coefficient of 5; (2) that the product, when
used as directed, would provide hygienically clean diapers and laundry, and
(3) that the product when used as directed, would disinfect or sanitize the
articles, places and surfaces named in the labeling and those implied by the
term "etc"; whereas, (1) the product had a phenol coefficient of substantially
less than 5; (2) the product when used as directed, would not provide hy-


gienically clean diapers or laundry,
would not disinfect or sanitize the
labeling or those implied by the term
The product was adulterated w
strength and purity fell below the
in its labeling, since its labeling bore


"Phenol


or (3) the product, when used as directed,
articles, places, or surfaces named in the
"etc".
within the meaning of the act in that its
professed standard or quality as expressed
the statement:


Co-efficient 20-0 5 FDA Method-S Typhosa"


and such statement implied or represented
product was 5 by the FDA Method against
coefficient of the product was substantially
against 8. Typhosa.
The Nu-Pine Corp., Jackson, Miss., claims
requested its release under bond for the pur


that the phenol coefficient of the
SS. Typhosa, whereas the phenol
less than 5 by the FDA Method

ed ownership of the product and
rose of removing the product from


the requirements of the act.
- On August 13, 1957, a consent decree of condemnation was entered and it
was ordered by the Court that the product be released to the claimant under
bond.
265. Lack of registration of "BRIDGEPORT SPOT WEED KILLER." U. S.
v. 129 12-ounce containers, more or less, of "BRIDGEPORT SPOT WEED
KILLER." Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond.
(I. F. & R. No. 289. I. D. No. 32706.)
SThe product "BRIDGEPORT SPOT WEED KILLER" was not registered
under thq Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On August 15, 1956, the United States Attorney for the District of Massa-
chusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
unitedd States District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and
confiscation of 129 12-ounce containers, more or less, of "BRIDGEPORT SPOT
WEmT TCT ]LL.R" at Boston. Mass.. allerine that the product was an economic






202

266.


INSECTICIDE,


FUNGICIDE,


AND


RODENTICIDE


ACT


[I. F. L. N. J.


Lack of registration of "CATTLE RUBBER INSECTICIDE," and "BEEF
CATTLE RUBBER INSECTICIDE." U. S. v. 26 one-gallon cans, more
or less, of "CATTLE RUBBER INSECTICIDE," and 76 one-gallon cans,
more or less, of "BEEF CATTLE RUBBER INSECTICIDE." Default
decree of condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 302.
I. D. Nos. 34342 and 34343.)


The products "CATTLE RUBBER
RUBBER INSECTICIDE" were not
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On October 25, 1957, the United St
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Si
States District Court, a libel praying
of 26 one-gallon cans, more or less,
and 76 onegallon cans, more or less,
OIDE," at East St. Louis, Illinois, a
poisons which had been transported
September 12, 1957, by Yuille Farm


INSECTICIDE," and "BEEF CATTLE
registered under the Federal Insecticide,


ates Attorney for the Eastern District of
secretary of Agriculture, fled in the United
seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of "CATTLE RUBBER INSECTICIDE,"
of "BEEF CATTLE RUBBER INSECTI-
Llleging that the products wereeonomic
interstate on or about June 25, 1957 and
Chemical Co., from Higginsville, Mo., in


violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not register
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On tNovmber 26, 1957, no claimant having appeared,
and forfeiture was entered and the United States
destroy thee products.


ed with the Seret W o

a decree of condemnation .
Marshal was ordered to


267. Lack of registration of "IMPROVED 'FLY-GONE' FLY AND INSECT
KILLER" and "PURE LINDANE INSECTICIDE." U. S. v. 14 units, more N
or less, and 141 one and one-half ounce bottles, more or less, of "PURE .
LINDANE INSECTICIDE." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 301. I. D. Nos. 33120 and 33123.)
The products "IMPROVED 'FLY-GONE' FLY AND INSECT KILLER" and
"PURE LINDANE INSECTICIDE" were not registered under the Federal In-
secticide, ungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On Jly 1957 the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Mihiat actMtg~ a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States Distric Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation and
conflSeon of 4 units, mod or less, of "IMPROVED 'FLY-GONE' FLY AND
INSECL KILLERI and 141 one and one-half ounce bottles, more or less, of
"PURE LINDANE INSECTICIDE" at Detroit, Mich., alleging that the products I
were economic poisons which had been transported interstate, on or about May
14, 0956, anda May 22, 1957, by Home Mfg. & Sales Co., from Piqua, Ohio in t
violation of the act.__
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required under section 4 of the act.
O February 14, I58, %o claimant liatf 4na~( ard, ~ei
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the products.
SB. Lack of registration of "TELO-GENE" GERMICIDE'. U. S. v. 51 con-
tainers, more or less, of "'TELO-GENE" GERMICIDE. Default decree
of condemnation, forfeiture and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 305. I. D.

The product "'TELO-GENE GERMICIDE" was not registered under the Fed-
41r In ~rtide. nlnrieide. and Rodenticide Act .


Hii:i:

II



* II
Hr
Hi
H,


Ai

.1!,







252-270]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


203


Lack of registration, lack of required information on labels, and mis-
branding of "SILCONITE 20 YEARS WOOD PROTECTION." U. S. v.
35 one-gallon containers, more or less, of SILCONITE 20 YEARS WOOD
PROTECTION." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture and destruc-
tion. (I. F. & R. No. 306. I. D. No. 33765.)


The product "SILCONITE 20
registered under the Federal Insec
examination showed that the labels
not bear a statement giving the name
or person for whom manufactured.
containers of the product also sho
statement on that part of the immed
presented or displayed under custo


was misbranded within the meaning
did not contain directions for use
adequate for the protection of the
within the meaning of the act in th
on its label and the product contain
claimed on the label. The product


YEARS WOOD PROTECTION" was not
ticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An
affixed to the containers of the product did
and address of the manufacturer, registrant,
An examination of the labels affixed to the
iwed that they did not bear an ingredient
iate container of the retail package which is
imary conditions of purchase. The product


g of the
which
public.
at its n
Led less
was adu


in that its strength or purity fell bel
expressed on its labeling.
On January 3, 1958, the United Sta
Washington, acting upon a report by
United States District Court, a libel p
fiscation of 35 one-gallon containers, i
WOOD PROTECTION" at Vancouver,
economic poison which had been tran:
15, 1956, by Imperial Standard Corp.,
the act.
The product was labeled, marked, a


act
are
The
et co
than
Itera


in that its accompanying labeling
necessary and, if complied with,
product was further misbranded
intent was less than that claimed
the amount of pentachlorophenol
ted within the meaning of the act


ow the professed s

tes Attorney for tl
the Secretary of A
raying seizure for
nore or less, of "SI
Wash., alleging th
sported interstate (
from Los Angeles,


nd branded


(in part)


standardd or

ie Western
agriculture,
condemnatii
[LCONITE
at the prod
an or about
Calif.. in


quality as


District of
filed in the
on and con-
20 YEARS
luct was an
September
violation of


as follows:


"76
SILCONITE
20 YEAR WOOD PROTECTION
CONTAINING


M MONSANTO
PE NTACH LOROP H E NO L


GENERAL


ELECTRIC


SILICONE


IS S


STOPS Rot... Stain .. Decay
KILLS Termites Insects .


. Fungus
. Beetles


Carpenter .nts"
. Carpenter Ants"


It was alleged that the product was not
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product did not
address of the manufacturer, registrant, or
It was alleged that the product was misbra
in that its labeling bore the statements:


registered


with


the Secretary


bear a label giving the name and
person for whom manufactured.
ended within the meaning of the act


"Active ingredients:
PENTAchlorophenol
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons


5. 20

78.80


Inert ingredients:
Water repellents
Silicone solution
Inert ingredients


2.00
13.00


*


flAT rnmv F, Cl IHfl A C4Tfl'


C1 ~I1D r;rrl


nlrrn nr rr







204 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [IF.L.N.; ;.

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 'i
which are necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the
public.
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
as expressed on its labeling, since its labeling bore the statement:
"PENTAchlorophenol 5.20," and such statement implied or represented that the
product contained 5.20% of pentachlorophenol, whereas, the product contained
less than 5.20% of pentachlorophenol. ..
On January 24, 1958, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy ................
the product. .. .
270. Lack of registration of "DDT-SULPHUR PEANUT DUST," "PEANUT !
DUST FOR LEAFSPOT AND LEAFHOPPER CONTROL," and "4% 1?
COPPER-5% DDT-80% SULPHUR PEANUT DUST." U. S. v, 80 fifty-
pound bags, more or less, of "DDT-SULPHUR PEANUT DUST.;* "40
fifty-pound bags, .more .or, less, of "PEANUT DUST FOR LEAFSPOT .
AND LEAFHOPPER CONTROL;" and 9 fifty-pbund bags, inoreore
of "4% COPPER-5% DDT--80% SULPHUR PEANUT DUST:' Defaul
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction (I, F>'
I. D. Nos. 33935, 33936, and 33937.)
The products "DDT-SULPHUR PEANUT DUST," "PEANUT DUST FOR
IEAFSPOT AND LEAFHOPPER CONTROL," and "4% COPPER-5%DDT
80% SULPHUR PEANUT DUST" were not registered under the Federal


Insecticie, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On December 12, 1957, the United States Attorney for the Eastern
of Virginia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, Bilea in 1
United States District Court, a libel praying seizure for condemnation am
confiscation of 80 fifty-pound bags, more or Pless, of DDT'BUPH
DUST ;" 40 flfty-pound bags, more or less; of "PEANUT DUST
AND LEAFHOPPER CONTROL ;" and 9 fifty-pound bags, more or less, of "4'
OOPPER-5% DDT--80% SULPHUR PEANUT DUST," at Petersburg V
alleging that the products were economic poisons which had been trarn
interstate on or about July 2, 1957, and July 18, 1957, by the Quality Chemic
Corp., from Ahoske, N 0., in itvinion of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary
Agriculture as required under section 4 of the act.
On April 14, 1958, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation ax
forfeiture was entered, and the UniI States Marshail was ordered to fdestr
the products.


'U


al
al

1
of
di

oy i


I:'


,r ; ~ub
F E .s X: :.1::848
~:: :"^xi: E ^^^i""i"d
1. E ,,d EE I I":h


:::I







252-270


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


205


INDEX TO


Alcatraz Number
servative Dark
The Alcatraz
Alcatraz Number
servative Dark
The Alcatraz


NOTICES


N. J. No.
100 Wood Pre-
Brown
Co., Inc.. .._ 255
100 Wood Pre-
Brown
Co.. Inc-..... 259


Beef Cattle Rubber Insecticide
Yuille Farm Chemical Co__
Bridgeport Spot Weed Killer
Bridgeport Brass Co....-..
Cattle Rubber Insecticide
Yuille Farm Chemical Co._
Cedar Closet Spray
Aerosol Methods .........
Cedar Seal Geunine Aromatic
Red Cedar
Cedar-Seal Corp.........
Chlor-Thane Spray Concentrate
R. L. Chacon Chemical Co.
Cro-Pax Foam Latex Insoles
Forest City Products, Inc_
Day 'N Niter Sleep and Play Set
S & R Infants Wear Co.,
Inc ..........------------.------
DDT-Sulphur Peanut Dust
Quality Chemical Corp_-_
Du-O-Cide Rose & Flower Dust
R. L. Chacon Chemical Co_
4% Copper--5% DDT--80%
Sulphur Peanut Dust
Quality Chemical Corp--.
Genuine Mist of Cedar *** Moth
Repellent
Spritz, Inc ------------ -
Hari Kari Flower Bomb
Lynwood Laboratories --..


OF JUDGMENT 252-270


N. J. No.
Hari Kari Kills Japanese
Beetles
Lynwood Laboratories.... 256
Improved 'Fly-Gone' Fly and
Insect Killer
Home Mfg. & Sales Co ... 267
Ker-Dan 45% Chlordane
Ker-Dan Products........ 254
Nu-Pine
Freeman Products Corp-__ 264
Parathion EC-45 Emulsifiable
Concentrate
Arizona Fertilizers, Inc... 261
Peanut Dust for Leafspot and
Leafhopper Control
Quality Chemical Corp.... 270
Phoenix Brand DDD 5
Arizona Fertilizers, Inc... 261
Phoenix Brand Malatox 3.5
Arizona Fertilizers, Inc... 261
Phoenix Brand Malatox 3.5
with 50% Sulphur
Arizona Fertilizers, Inc... 261
Pure Lindane Insecticide
Home Mfg. & Sales Co.--._ 267
Puritron
Ozo Sales Corp-_____--__- 257
Scale-O-Kil X
R. L. Chacon Chemical Co_ 262
Shoo-Fly Hornet Ear-Wig Jet
Bomb
Lynnwood Laboratories_-_ 256
Siliconite 20 Years Wood Pro-
tection
Imperial Standard Corps_- 269
"Telo-Gene" Germicide
Zenith Drug, Inc ..-.--.._ 268




.
iP
- H~i *i ;


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA



111113 1262 08511111118 83441111111111111
3 1262 08588 8344


;~


* i 4..a.
* j::: SE
tiii. .
.E .i" ::
*:iX" "
i I.
: :ilV
7


.4 .: *



,i. 1.'
.- 't
I *1


t Ii
I


:.4i
.,.~~Iii.
. %..l


'L. ii i.


q.
- x:::m:..x:x.x:rx.:r :x~e:*~e"-I:


i.:r


;;
"B
I ;:"B ""B


" ~'::"


~


~,e


m