![]() ![]() |
![]() |
UFDC Home | Search all Groups | World Studies | Federal Depository Libraries of Florida & the Caribbean | Vendor Digitized Files | Internet Archive | | Help |
Material Information
Subjects
Notes
Record Information
Related Items
|
Full Text |
S.5 N. J., I. F. I ~ .30I mL 0 4 Issued November 1935 United States Department Agriculture FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION NOTICES JUDGMENT UNDER THE INSECTICIDE ACT [Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act] 1357-1375 [Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, October 30, 1935] 1357. Adulteration and misbranding of Supersan Clortox, and misbrand- ing of Pine Disinfectant and Superman Animal Soft Soap. U. S. v. Chemical Compounding Corporation, and Eugene Kohn. Pleas of guilty. Fines, $375. (I. & F. no. 1714. Sample nos. 43748-A, 43749-A, 43750-A.) This case was based on an interstate shipment of the following products: A lot of Clortox that contained a smaller proportion of the active ingredient than declared, and that was labeled with false and misleading claims as to its alleged antiseptic, disinfecting, and deodorizing properties; a lot of Pine Disinfectant that was labeled with false and misleading claims that it was harmless and was an effective disinfectant for personal use; and a lot of Animal Soap labeled with false and misleading claims as to its alleged effec- tiveness against mites, mange, scabies, and other insects. On September 29, 11 of New York, acting the district court an ration and Eugene I fendants, in violation 1933, from the State o of Supersan Clortox w of Pine Disinfectant a The information ci strength and purity fe the United States attorney for the Eas upon a report by the Secretary of information against the Chemical ohn, of the Agricul Compou. Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment Insecticide Act of 1910, on or about if New York vhich was ad nd Supersan iarged that ll below the into the State ulterated and Animal Soft the Clortox professed stan it was sold, "Active Ingredients: 4.0% Sodium tained sodium hypochlorite in a proportion less of New Jersey, misbranded and Soap, which were was adulterated dard and quality Hypochlorite ", than 4 percent, tern District ture, filed in ending Corpo- by said de- November 8, of a quantity of quantities misbranded. in that its under which since it con- namely, 3.38 percent. Misbranding of the Clortox was alleged for the reason that the statement, "Active Ingredients: 4.0% Sodium Hypochlorite", borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading, and by reason of the said statement the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, than 4 percent of sodium hypochlorite. Misbranding leged for the further reason that the following state "It is, therefore, the best disinfectant and medium disease germs in urine, fecal discharges, sputa, etc. tion-_% solution (tablespoonful to pint of water) is since it contained less of the Clortox was al- ents on the bottle label, for the destruction of * For Disinfee- a powerful disinfectant ( INSECTICIDE ACT [N. J., I.F. of the said the purcha charges of not act as infect the feet waste at the dilu statements iser; since all kinds, an effect air; would pipes, ice tion of 1 t Misbranding of th the article the article was would labeled so as to deceive not be effective in urine fecal discharges, and for all antiseptic ve disinfectant at the dilutions specified not disinfect and deodorize toilet bowls; boxes, and garbage cans; would not act ablespoonful in the bath. e Pine Disinfectant was alleged for the statements, "Harmless to Humans and Personal Uses: A 5% solution is very foot bath, douche. Also a delightful on the can label, were false and misl ments the article was labeled so as since it was not harmless Animals", " useful as a addition to fading anid 1 to deceive to humans and animals i SDisinfectant mouth wash, shampoo and by reason of nd mislead t n that it was mislead , sputum, purposes; would ; would not dis- would not disin- as an antiseptic reason that the * For throat spray, bath ", borne the said state- he purchaser; poisonous, and since the article, when used as directed, would not act as an effective disin- fectant for personal uses. Misbranding of the Animal Soap was alleged for the reason that the state- ments, Supersan Animal Soft Soap Kills Fleas, Mites, Lice and mar~ other insects. and misleading and so as to deceive an Aids in 1 by reason d mislead directed, would not kill m treatment of mange and sca indicated by the term "m that the said Animal Soap v Act, reported in Notice of J On October 5, 1934, the imposed fines totaling $375 Treatment of Mange, Scabies", were false the said statements the article was labeled purchaser; since the article, when used as sites and would not be effective as an aid in the babies, and would not be effective against all insects any other insects." The information also charged was misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs judgment no. 23258 published under that act. defendants entered pleas of guilty and the court for violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910. itt. WILSON, Acting 1;,5. Misbranding of Organic Cleanser. U. S. v. cal Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. no. 60937-A.) Secretary of The United & D. Agriculture. States Chemi- no. 1747. Sample This case was based on an interstate shipment of a fungicide, known as Organic Cleanser, which contained inert ingredients that were not indicated on the label as required by law. On December of Ohio, district porati April ity of ing of The inert substa name acting court an 1934 United States attorney for the upon a report by the Secretary information against the United , Greenville, Ohio, allegin . 1934, from the State of organic Cleanser which wa ie Insecticide Act of 1910. article was alleged to be r subsi nces and were not s containing amount of tericidal) ent, stated Southern District of Agriculture, States Chemical g shipment by said company, on or about Ohio into the State of Indiana, of a quan- s a misbranded fungicide within the mean- nisbranded in that it dances, i. e., substances other than hydroci do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fi percentage amount of each inert substance stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the the article; nor, in lieu thereof, were th every substance or ingredient of the article properties, and the total percentage of the i plainly and correctly, or at all, on the label. consisted partially loric acid, which inert ungi (bacteria), and the so present in the article label affixed to the jugs e name and percentage having fungicidal (bac- nert substances so pres- ___ ^- .. S. ta it fl i .1.. tJL ii - I ! " ] 1357-1,, j NOTICES JUDGMENT 217 district court an information against the C. H. C. Chemical Co., a corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging shipment by said company on or about May 8, 1934, from the State of Ohio into the State of Indiana of a quantity of Cinoline, which was a misbrand'ed fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The article was alleged to be misbranded in tha "1. Use one part of Cinoline to seven parts water. building and work down, ways. Apply about one Toilets and Washrooms foul odors. 4. In additi Weekly, which can usual centrated form for this or eye watering, open a there will be no complain the article, the article represented whereas the Misbrandi partially of of the said correctly or were false and vas labeled so as spraying Class rooms. Clot hour before School opens Daily, as Cinoline is an id on, we suggest that a thl lly be done un Saturday purpose. 5. In case same wind(low, so as to create nt ", borne on tihe label all LI e ii ( S a 1: t tlhe 2. S k roc or at al di rough )V a houl t dra xeu' t following statements, tart at the top floor of )ms, Lockers andti Hall- noon hour. 3. Spray sinfectant to eliminate Fumigation be made Holiday. Use in con- I rause slight sneezing ft. In a few minutes o the drum containing misleading, and by reason of the said statements to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they t the article when used id article when used as was allegedly for the fu inert substance, water rt substance present in all on the label affixed the name and percentage amount of ea having fungicidal (bactericidal) prop as directed, would act as a disinfectant; directed would not act as a disinfectant. irther reason that the article consisted , and the name and percentage amount Sthe article were not stated plainly or to the drum; nor, in lieu thereof, were ch substance or ingredient of the article erties and the total percentage of the inert substance present stated plainly and correctly or at all on the said label. On January 14, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of defendant company and the court imposed a fine of $50. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 1360. Adulteration and misbranding of Medina Process Blue Dust and Medina Process Copper Arsenic Dust. U. S. v. 12 Bags of Medina Process Blue Dust and 12 Bags of Medina Process Copper Arsenic Dust. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, adn destrue- tion. (I. & F. no. 1638. Samples nos. 40551-A, 40552-A. This case involved products, sold as insecticides and fungicides, that con- tained less copper expressed as metallic, less monohydrated copper sulphate, and more inert ingredients than declared on the tags attached to the bags containing the article. On July 24, 1933, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 12 bags of Medina Process Blue Dust and 12 bags of Medina Copper Arsenic Dust at Hanna, Ind., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 27, 1933, by the New York Insecticide Co., Inc., from Medina, N. Y., and charging misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910. On August 2, 1934, an amendment to the libel was filed charging that the articles were also adulterated in that their strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which they were sold since they contained less copper expressed as metallic, less monohydrated copper sulphate, and more inert ingredients than declared on the labels. Misbranding was alleged in that the following statements borne on the labels were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser: (Blue Dust) "Nine percent copper Copper Sulphate - .. &r .- x A A.*-* a .f- -. a > > r 218 INSECTICIDE ACT [N. J., I. F. On Jun Kentucky, district co Antiseptic interstate froi Act I ing wit the rn e 28, 1934, acting up urt a libel at Louisv commerce, SMercer, of 1910. the United States on a report by tilhe praying seizure an 'ille, Ky., alleging on or about April charging attorney for the Western District of Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the d condemnation of 10 bottles of Savol that the article had been shipped in 26, 1934, by the Savol Chemical Co., misbranding violation of the Insecticide t was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the follow- statements on the bottle and carton labels, and in a circular shipped h the article, were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead purchaser, (bottle) "Directions: Unless otherwise desired, use diluted Savol consisting teaspoonful Diluted Savol is an excellent d in cupboards, sinks, closets, sprinkle Bed-buu Savol germs acid, insects the mo market ed igs, is with etc." an id diluted Savol ; (circular) al antiseptic, I I isinfec etc.", , (cart Savol for it a pint very tant and deodorant ii (circular) "Poultry on) "Savol * * The ideal quickly destroys all hot water * i the sick room : houses should Destroys * antiseptic * microbes or * it has three times as much germ-destroying power as * Cupboards that are infested with vermin can be free by washing them with diluted Savol. Savol * st agreeable and efficient antiseptic, disinfectant and deodorant ", since the article was not an excellent disinfectant in the disease carbolic d from * it is on the places named, and would no when applied by sprin bugs, etc.; microbes or ing power all vermin; odorant in the article does not p it was not disease ge as carbolic and was the market consisted I event, t disinfect when used at the dilution recommended kling; when used as directed it would not destroy bed- the ideal antiseptic; it would not quickly destroy all rms; it did not have three times as much germ-destroy- acid; it would not free cupboards from all insects and not the most agreeable and efficient antiseptic and de- . Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that )artially of an inert substance, water, which substance destroy, repe or mitigate insects and percentage amount of such inert ingredient were n stated on the label; nor, in lieu thereof, of each and every ingredient of the a properties, and the total percentage of conspicuously on the label. The libel and Drugs Act reported in Notice of that act. On August ordering that were the name article having in the inert ingred also charged a Judgment no. or fungi, the name ot plainly and correctly and percentage amount secticidal or fungicidal ient, stated plainly awl violation of the Food 22978, published under 9, 1934, no claimant having appeared, judgment the product be destroyed. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of 1362. Misbranding of Cedartex. UT. S. v. 36 S decree of destruction. (I. & F. no. 1561. This case involved Cedartex, a plaster inten clothes closets, which was represented to afford Examination of the product showed that, when used afford permanent moth protection. The package fai a statement indicating the inert ingredients. On or about December 31, 1931, the United States District of Michigan, acting upon a report by the filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and t was entered Agrieidtun ~. lacks of Cedartex. S. no. 251.) ded for use in the 1 permanent moth as directed, led to bear Default lining of protection. it would not on the labels attorney for the Eastern Secretary of Agriculture, condemnation of 386 sacks 1357-1375] NOTICES JUDGMENT 219 were the a ingre inert labelE On order not stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the bags containing article; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount of the dient having insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of the substances in the article, stated plainly and correctly on each of the s. S February 4, ng that the 1932, no claimant having appeared, judgmer product be destroyed. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of it was entered Agriculture. 1363. Mi.nbranding of Dr. Kleinfeld's Medicated Flea Shampoo. Dr. Klein- feld's Flea Powder, and Dr. Kleinfeld's Bird Lice Powder. U. S. v. Paramount Pet Supply Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1. (I. & F. no. 1740. Sample nos. 67297-A, 67299-A, 67300A.) This case wa Medicated Flea on the label as dients and less Powder, which ingredient othex than declared found to contain 3 based on a shipment of various insecticides, one of which, the Shampoo, contained inert ingredients that were not declared required by law. The Flea Powder contained more inert ingre- active ingredients than declared on the label. The Bird Lice declared talc as the sole inert ingredient, contained an inert r than talc and the total of the inert ingredients was greater on the label. Sample packages taken from all products were n less than the declared quantity of contents. On November 22, 1934,. the Jersey, acting upon a report trict court an information ag United States attorney for the by the Secretary of Agriculture, ainst the Paramount Pet Supply District filed in Co., In City, N. J., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the In Act of 1910, on or about October 21, 1933, from the State of New Je, the State of New York, of quantities of Dr. Kleinfeld's Medicat Shampoo, Dr. Kleinfeld's Flea Powder, and Dr. Kleinfeld's Bird Lice which were misbranded insecticides within the meaning of said act. The articles were alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, of New the dis- c., Union secticide rsey into :ed Flea Powder, Fluid Ounces ", with respect to the Flea Shampoo, and the statement, "Contents 1 Ounce ", with respect to the Flea Powder and to the Bird Lice Powder, borne on the labels, were false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the articles were labeled so as to deceive and mislo,', the purchaser, since the bottles containing the Flea Shampoo contained less than 2 ounces, and the cans containing the Flea Powder and the Bird Lice Powder contained less than 1 ounce of the articles. Misbrandin it consisted centage amour rectly, or at percentage ax g pa ant all no ties, and the tota and correctly, or was alleged for t Powdered Derris label, were false article was label article contained of the Flea rtly of an of the sai . on the bo unt of each 1 percent at all, o0 lie further Root 27 and misl ed so as active in Shampoo inert subs d inert sub title label: i substance ige of the ii n the said l Lr reason th .5% Inert ending, and to deceive gredients in was al tance, stance ior, in of the nert si abel. at the leged for the further reason that water, and the name and per- were not stated plainly and cor- lieu thereof, were the name and article having insecticidal proper- ibstance so present, stated plainly Misbranding of the Flea Powder statements, "Active Ingredients: Ingredients 72.5%", borne on the by reason of the said statements and mislead the purchaser, since a proportion much less than 27.5 cent, and contained inert percent. Misbranding of reason that the statement, ' label, was false and misleadin: a-'1 1 ain I-t/ a h- I-/ n- A n. n 4-^- n ^ A-n r^ *! n n ingredients in the Bird Lice a proportion Powder was [nert Ingredient r, and by reason n-A ,1 4V .1~iArtr 4-ba / Talc of the nflflnl/i much greater than 72.5 alleged for the further 72.5% said f i ft <,t ", borne on the can statement the article nlSv^*/ 4It a cmi AI ~nm 4-nf 220 INSECTICIDE ACT [N. J., I. F. On or about June 25, 1934, the United States attorney for the District q Massachusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 85 packages of Mothex Cedarized Tablets at Boston, Mass., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 21, 1933, by the Odora Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y., and charging misbranding in violation of the Insecti- cide Act of 1910. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements appearing on the label and carton, (label) "Mothex Cedarized Tablets Kill Moths and Moth Eggs Mothex The Superior Moth Destroyer Safe Effective Economical Directions Unwrap Tablets Use in Clothes Pockets Furs Woolens Closets Drawers Chests etc.", (carton) "Mothex Cedarized Tablets Kills Moths and Moth Eggs The Ideal Moth Repellant Use Mothex Cedarized Tablets for Complete Moth Protection Mothex Moth Repel- lants Mothex Cedarized Tablets Safe Efficient", were false and misleading and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they represented that the article when used as directed would kill moths and moth eggs and would repel moths; whereas the article when used as directed, would not be effective against moths under all conditions, would not repel moths, and would not furnish complete moth protection under all conditions. On August 7, 1934, no claimant having appeared, judgment of forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed. M. L. WIr.soN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 1365. Misbranding of Reefer's No-Moth Sets and Reefer's No-Moth Refills. U. S. v. 116 Reefer's No-Moth Sets and 55 Bottles of Reefer's No- Moth Refills. Default decree of condemnation and forfeiture. (I. & F. no. 1702. Sample no. 62319-A.) This case involved a shipment of moth sets consisting of a liquid and a vapor- izer, and certain bottles of the liquid to be used as refills. Examination of the article showed that it would not kill moths and afford the moth protection claimed in the labeling. On April 27, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding a district court, a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 116 Reefer's No-Moth Sets and 55 bottles of Reefer's No-Moth Refills at Washington, D. C., alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about April 5, 1934, by Reefer-Galler, Inc., from New York, N. Y., and charging misbrandling in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The articles were alleged to be misbranded in borne on the labels of the bottles of the refills t the said sets, Reefer's No-Moth Kills Moths * fully. metal Punch Be sum through 1. Remo holder. holes wi 'e to punf h this hw the floor at the collar into hold metal cup. Use closed ", and th infl^i.ni i f lt***t / 4.t n .* f * that the following statements, 11(1 011 * ve the bottle together with wooden ( It is important not to detach wooden c th a very sharp pointe *le. 3. Hang the metal holder on the rear of case or clothes closet. 4. Re* er so that the wooden collar sets soli in space as large as 75 cubic feet. To e following statements appearing in a *. -- .. *r-' S fl~ iVl*t ~ d S nxd-r. ~ ~ '.d ~~X5 S..Iflnt ~nS-, ~.. the bottles contained in Directio care from rked Lid is ioard bottle dly on the confine fui circular eXl ,4l"r, 1 '1 f ns Read Care- ully from the the bottle. 2. 'Punch Here.' clearly visible or place it on e with w bottom mes, keep Inclosed ooden of the doors in the *n dX 'bt ir . - 1357-1375 NOTICES JUDGMENT 221 when used as directed, would kill against moths for 12 months; where not kill clothes moths, and would months. On January 23, tion was entered manner as would clothes moths and would give protection as the article when used as directed would not give protection against moths for 12 , 1935, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- and it was ordered that the product be disposed of in such not violate the provisions of the Insecticide Act of 1910. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 1366. Misbranding of Atlas Disinfeetant. U. S. v. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. no. 1732. Outlet Sales Co., Inc., Sample no. 58017- A.) . This case was based on a labeling of which contained disinfecting properties. The was not declared on the label On December 21, 1934, the in interstate false and mi article consis as required United Stat shipment leading cl ited partly by law. es attorney; of Atlas Disinfectant, the aims relative to its alleged of an inert substance which y for the Southern District of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against the Outlet Sales Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., alleging shipment by said company on or about October 24, 1933, from the State of New York into the State of Massachusetts of a quantity of Atlas Disinfectant which was a misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Disinfectant * * cleaning purposes. Cuts and Urinals, water ", false and General Cleaning-Use 3 teaspoons sinks, ice boxes, floors and all other The sickroom-one table I Wounds-Two teaspoons to the qi etc. Flush bowl regularly with solut borne on the label affixed to the bc misleading, and by reason of the sai ful to each pail of water used for mopping, scrubbing and sprinkling lespoon to each gallon of water. iuart of warm water. ion of half a cup to 3ttles containing the 1 statements the article Lavatories, the gallon of article, were e was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they represented that it would act as an effective disinfectant when used in the dilutions specified on the label; would act as an effective disinfectant for cuts and wounds when used in the dilutions specified on the label; and would disinfect lavatories and urinals when used as directed; whereas the article would not act as an effective disinfectant when used in the dilutions specified on the label; would not act as an effective disinfectant for cuts and wounds when used in the dilutions specified on the label; and would not disinfect lavatories and urinals when used as directed. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article consisted partially of an inert substance, water, which does not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi (bacteria), and the name and the percentage amount of the said inert substance present in the article were not stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the bottle label; nor, in lieu there and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient of inieeticidal or fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and th of the inert substance present stated plainly and correctly, said label. On January 21, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf and the court imposed a fine of $50. f, were the name the article having e total percentage or at all, on the f of this defendant M. L. WILSON, Actina Secretary of Auariculture. 1367. Misbranding of The Electric Moth Master. U. S. v. ing Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (T & P no 1715 Snmnlo no 2o27--A ) Teco Manufactur- Fine remitted. T T Lf 222 INSECTICIDES ~CT [N. J., I. F. Kills Moths Moths and Larvae jnkA Larva wi:h In Larvae continue throughout generally maintained the Electric Motluhmas less should completely ately longer. * Rugs, Upholstered Moth Injury. N mination of Cloi Electric Moth Mz fumigation make has combined ele copious gas that your closets an( Moths and their provided by the only a positive la able against the your entire hom( the efficiency of to quickly rid ti worth its weight plate that has b master cap. Bri when closing the sion cord, or to cal Fumigation contain 200 cub highly concentra cient to kill all portionately long fumigation. All in place to be ft mercial extermrn sure remedy. electric m home. A smaller ui fumigated under the the closet. Situation again yo closet th it. The] under thi that the carpets o expedien 1 ,U ua a a ( e * Vap ch a yea the of a 1 there S* A Mo Furniture s o Work--No) thes Moths * The Electric Mottimaster Quickly A S I Kills or Developed by Controlled Heat Just Plug It t various times and their destructive activities r at the normal room temperatures which are present day home. Six hours fumigation wiAh tight closet containing 250 cubic feet of Space or u. Larger closets should be fumigated proportion- it Efficient Mo h Fumigator for the Home Insures Clothing-Furs and all other Woolens Against Worry Just Plug It In", (circular) "The Exter- * A Moth Killer That Really Kills The aster Quickly kills moths and their larvae Electrical s you master of the moth situation in your home. Here science ~ctrical heat with a most effective chemical into a pungent and cannot fail to thoroughly permeate every nook and crevice of every thread larvae cannot of the survive garments six hours fabrics electrical stored therein. fumigation as Electric Mothmaster. The Electric Mothmas er is not tbor saver, but it is by far the most economical insurance avail- ravages of Moths. Only one Mothmaster is required e against infestation by these unw welcomed guests. I the Electric Mothmaster could be measured only by he closets of Moths and their destructive Larvae, it Sin gold because the operation is so easy. Simply s een placed in the center of the closet floor. Open ng the cord out over the door sill. Raise up on the door, so it will clear the cord. Connect the plug to any electrical outlet has begun: * ie feet of space, or ted gas existing rer. The woolen imigated eating co 3ut that )thmaster develo Moth door clothiz along mpani is e because ped by life. must ng and with es has pensiv t it is a that Sa less the may ving , six Elec to protect If its ability would be et it on a the Moth- door knob an exten- be more convenient and Electri- the Furniture For closets that hours of fumigation with the trick Mothmaster should be suffi- Larger closets should be fumigated pro- be kept tightly shut during the period of other fabrics usually kept there the closet. Fumi been accepted as the mos e! This problem is now complete moth fumigating gation f effect solved plant closet will often accommodate an upholstered chair. Man: holstered pieces and cushions can also be put in a closet that . Place the electric Mothmaster on the floor of the closet upholstered niece and it will be thoroughly fumigated, as * * in Your employ th is to be ]L- ---.- The Electric Moth Master Makes Yo Home. Protecting Your e closet to advantage. Place a can fumigated, and drape, or balloon n by placing the Electric Mothmas Le chair, the rug will be subjected t entire closet receives. Remember r rugs unless they are treated in tight t of s'nrinkling powders, crystals or open room afnor lhh, onr.t * ds very * Tpha doubtful protection rlaonwtoi Xfnth ATafwt I, IT ter on o the that y , confli liquid if an * xlumin u Master Rugs * e seated c the rug closet are h by co ive a by t for t 'of t is to direc well eft im- nd :he :he :he be tly as of the Moth * Here hair in the loosely over floor directly same rnorougn iumigat 'ou cannot kill Larvae ed enclosures. The sim Is on rug surfaces in iy, against destruction nnton tha urors hv li1inir ion its~ k IL jl ? I ' Y r . 1357-1375] NOTICES JUDGMENT 223 the article would kill moth automobile upholstery; whe kill moths and their larva upholstery. On December 27, 1934, a p company and the court impo is and their larvae and would eliminate reas the article, when used as directed, te and would not eliminate moths in moths in would not automobile lea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant sed a line of $25, which fine was remitted. M. L. WILSON, Actiwg Secretary 1368. Adulteration and mnisbranding of Manufacturing Co. Plea of nolo Sentence of 6 months' probation; 1726. Dom. nos. 43283, 43365, 43366. 26454-A, 26455-A, 26480-A.) Agrieniture. Cid and Astogen. U. S. v. Rose contender. Judgment of guilty. sentence suspended. (I. & F. no. 51136. Sample nos. 0825-A, 9826-A, This case was based on interstate shipments of products, known as Cid and Astogen, which were insecticides and fungicides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act. Examination showed that the articles contained inert ingre- dients in a proportion greater than declared on the labels and inert ingredients other than those declared. The labels also contained unwarranted claims regarding the effectiveness of the articles in the control of certain insects and fungi. On December 4, Pennsylvania, acti 1934, the ng upon the district court an informa portion at Philadelphia, Pa., of the Insecticide Act of 1910 1932, from the State of Penn, and Georgia, of quantities o misbranded. The articles were labels, Inert Ingred ingredient: Silica 30 standard the inert and that t proportion strength a quality un percent of nd quality ingredient, he latter c of silica i nd purity der which water alleged ient: ) p.C." y of th water, ontaine n the a of the they d conta United States attorney for the Eastern District of a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in tion against the Rose Man alleging shipment by said , between the dates of Feb sylvania into the States of f Cid and Astogen which to Water adulterated r with with respect to th e articles were suc in the proportion d silica only as an article was not more articles fell below vere sold, since the ined I inert ingredien Astogen contained inert ingredients other than silica in the article was greater than 30 percent. Misbranding of the OlCid was alleged for the statements borne on the bottle label. Inert ingre trols insects * chrysanthemum erpillars * weekly until c he sprayed wit -P * kills r beetles * * cucumber controlled * h Cid double is advisable to loosen the soil sionally with a weak solution mixing four tablespoonfuls (2 quantity of Cid used for spray gen-forming a protective film disease OlCid * blights including rust, yellows . nost plan rose beetles for strength. and of fluid ing again] fur ;, ste -* StE t insects chafers *' *f - resistant without respect to h Lufacturing Co., a cor- company in violation ruary 23 and May 18, New York, Maryland, were adulterated and statements Astogen, purported that the former on the "Inert that the contained of not more than 22 percent, inert ingredient, and that the than 30 percent; whereas the the professed standard and Cid contained more than 22 .ts other than water, and the silica reason dient I the that Water proportion following 22%. Cid con- by contact, such as astel * snails * for other insects, once or insects plants injury to foliage * rand nn4--~ V+.CI. l- twice may * It water plants subject to root insects occa- Cid to destroy surface and soil insects- ounces) to the gallon of water-the same * Cid may be mixed with Insectro- nst insects Olid controls * igicide plant spray controls many m rot, delphinium blight Start at A -i. S* a I 224 INSECTICIDE ACT [N. J., I.F. than 22 percent and when used as directed it would not control all insects, would not act as an effective insecticide against aster and chrysanthemum beetles, rose chafers, snails, cucumber beetles, all caterpillars and all other insects, would not control all plant diseases and would not control rust, yellows, stem rot, delphinium blight, and all fungi on aster Misbranding of the Astogen was alleged for statements, borne on the can label, "Inert ingre Kills Most Root Insects Including Cut Worms for root insects, ants, cut worms, white grubs, many parasitic insects on plant roots and in the bines, Nasturtiums. Marigolds, Snapdragons, Cale other plants. Astogen frame, and the vegetable garden worms, sow bugs, millipeds * is useful when (after plants etc. * and other plants. the reason that the following dient: Silica 30 p.c. * * An effective control wire worms, sow bugs, and soil-including Asters, Colum- ndulas, Heliotropes cultivated into the are growing), contr * For eliminating I '4 Get Rid of garden ants, simply spread Astogen over the ant mounds when necessary. Astogeu with Peat Moss Astogen will useful placing other ii soil of in spreading about one-quarter of an inch deep over the : peat moss on flower beds in order to keep out the rose pith sects Astogen is valuable for potted plants, as it insect pests Astogen the soil ( 4 1 4 most insects and many soil, cold ailing cut Ants To . Repeat be found il before borer and clears the , and has been found a great labor saver in preventing ants from carrying mealy bugs and other pests to the plant, as the eggs, larvae, and adults are destroyed in the ground by the toxic effect of Astogen Astogen is a non-poisonous cut worm control Where plants have been allowed to grow and have not been previously treated, liberal applications of Astogen have been found to greatly improve their condition. This practice will destroy root insects, ants, cut woi but the subject Many S assists togen perman around into th peat A! plants ] applica were ft :ms and other soil pests We have used the aster Same treatment is equally valuable for other plants and to root insects And Remember-Astogen Kills Cut oil Insects Without Poisoning Vegetables or Plants. * in preventing yellows Directions for * About ten days after the plants have been transfer ent location and show growth, cultivate half a trowel full the roots of each plant. The preparation should also be Ssoi stoge have tions lse around plants near the stem a n application several times d been allowed to grow and havy of Astogen have been found and misleading and by reason U' was labeled so as to deceive and mislead ti that it contained silica only as an inert i not more than 30 percent and, when used a: insecticide against all insects so designated insects that might be included under the a in preventing yellows of asters: whereas ents other than silica, it contained silica percent and when used as directed would against the insects so designated, or against might be included under the abbreviatio preventing yellows of asters. On January 23. 1!)35, a plea of nolo con adjudged the defendant to be guilty and probation which sentence was suspended. t the su ing the not beer rface of soil * season. * 1 previously trea as a basis, vegetables Worms and * Astogen Using As- ed to their of Astogen cultivated * Re- * Where ted, liberal o greatly improve their condition ", of the said statements the article te purchaser, since they represented ingredient, and in the proportion of s directed, would act as an effective and against all root insects and all abbreviation "etc." and would assist the article contained inert ingredi- in a proportion greater than 30 not act as an effective insecticide t all root insects or all insects that n "etc.", and would not assist in tendere was entered. imposed a sentence the court 6 monthst ! i t 1357-1375] NOTICES JUDGMENT 225 not guaranty that the article was ing of the Insecticide Act of edition as when so sold and del about June 23, 1933, by the sa the State of New Jersey, and meaning of the said act. The article was alleged to borne on the bottle and carton tion having antisept indicated that Florozone has the common pus-producing organism", especially adapted for use in the Home, tutions, Theatres, Boarding and Apartm there is need of an efficient Deodorizer, to bother with unpleasant disinfectants fragrant odor, in place of carbolic acid, general disinfection. Florozone is effec for General Use For Household a diluted, Directions As an an perspiration centers, use several tables Florozone women's a Quart adapted f Boarding need of bother w personal h of Warm :or and an ith practical, exquisite adulterated or misbranded within the mean- 1010; that the said article, in the identical con- ivered, was shipped in interstate commerce on or id E. J. Barry, from the State of New York into that it was a misbranded fungicide within the be misbranded in that the following statements Labels, (bottle and carton) "A valuable prepara- tic properties. Scientific bacteriological tests have definite killing strength against Staphyloccus,- (bottle Hospitals. Public Buildings ent Houses, Stores; in gene Germicide and Disinfectant. any more. Use Florozone cresol or other ill-sin tive and pleasant to nd General Disinfe tiseptic wash for the oonsful to a quart of pleasant antisep giene Directions for Feminine Hygiene Water'", (carton) "Disinfectant * use in the Home, Hospitals, Public SApartment Houses, Theatres, stores efficient Deodorizer, Germicide and unpleasant disinfectants any longer Buildings I selling use. action, hands water :ic * Tw< * i is and Insti- ral where No need , with its agents for Directions use un- face and * for DC Ins ; in general where Disinfectant. No . Use Florozone, fragrant odor, in place of carbolic acid, cresol or other ill-sn general disinfection. Florozone is effective and pleasant to for General Use For Household and General Disinf diluted, Directions As an antiseptic wash for the perspiration centers, use several tablespoonsful to each quart were false and misleading and by reason of the said statement labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that that the article when used as directed would possess antisep would kill Staphyloccocus, the common pus-forming organism as directed would act as an effective disinfectant for the purl on the labels, whereas the article when used as directed did septic properties, would not kill the Staphyloccocus, the con t 1 I, II selling a use. I ection, 'unces to especially titutions, there is need to with its gents for directionss hands, face and of warm water". :s the article was they represented ie properties and t, and when used >oses so indicated not possess anti- mnon pus-forming organism, and would not act as an effective disinfectant for the purposes so indicated on the labels. On January 14, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant company and the court imposed a fine of $50. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 1370. Misbranding of Vapoo. Co.). Plea of guilty. This case was based on defined by the Insecticide to its alleged disinfecting On December 27, 1934, t New York, acting upon a district court an informal U. S. v. Benjamin T. Lake (Vapoo Products Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1745. Sample no. 69812-A.) a shipment of Vapoo, an insecticide and fungicide as Act, the labels of which bore unwarranted claims as and moth-proofing properties. he United States attorney for the Southern District of report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the ion against Benjamin T. Lake, trading as the Vapoo II 226 INSECTICIDE ACT [N. J., I.F. whereas when applied as so directed, it would not disinfect and would not render mothproof rugs and upholstery. On December 28, 1934, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed a fine of $25. M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 1371. This -arseni On of Call district tion, L Insecti nia in terate( The tainted arsenic On I compa: Adnlteration of PariN green. U'. S. v. Los Angeles Chemnical Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1734. Sample no. 29580-A.) case was based on a shipment of Paris green that contained excessive c in water-soluble form. November 27, 1934, the United States attorney for the Southern District ifornia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the t court an information against the Los Angeles Chemical Co., a corpora- ios Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the icide Act of 1910, on or about October 7, 1933, from the State of Califor- to the State of Arizona, of a quantity of Paris green which was adul- d. article was alleged to be adulterated in that it was Paris green, and con- arsenic in water-soluble form equivalent to more than 3% percent of ous oxide. December 10, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant ny and the court imposed a fine of $25. M. L. WasoN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 1372. Minbranding of Sentaromann. U. S. v. Velray, Inc. Plea of nuilty. Sentence, $25. Fine remitted. (I. & F. no. 1744. Sample no. 71667-A.) This case was based on a shipment of Sentaroma, an insecticide as defined by law, the labeling of which contained unwarranted claims regarding its alleged effectiveness as a moth repellent. On November 19, 1934, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against Velray, Inc., New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company, on or about April 26, 1934, from the State of New York into the State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of Sentaroma which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the label of the packages, "Moth Repellant ", was false and misleading, and by reason of the said statement the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the article would not act as a moth repellent. On November 22, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant company and the court imposed a fine of $25, which fine was remitted. M. L. WasoN. Actinc Secretary of Aariculture. 1373. Allegred nlnbrunding of Thermpak Moth Preventive. U. S. v. Therm- wvool Produets Co., Inc. Tried to the court. Directed verdict dis- missing information. (I. & F. no. 1733. Sample nos. 67182-A, 68352-A.) On November 14, 1934, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed to Le dis rookl. S, 193z Sabol assac] trict court in, N. Y., c 4, from the it February husetts, of q an Information against the Thermwool Products charging shipment by said company on or about State of New York into the State of Connecticul 27, 1984, from the State of New York into the quantities of Thermpak Moth Preventive, which wa Co., Inc., February t and on State of s alleged v w 13u57-137] NOTICES JUDGMENT 227 Misbranduling of Plea of guilty. Skat-a-Roach. Fine, $10. (I. U. S. v. Skat-a-Rat Corporation. & F. no. 1731. Sample no. ($425-A.) This case was based on an interstate shipment of Skat-a-Roach, the labels of which contained false and misleading representations relative to its alleged efficacy in the control of certain insects. On October 24, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode Island, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against the Skat-a-Rat Corporation, Providence, R. I., alleging shipment by said company on or about March 1, 1934, from the State of Rhode Island into the State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of Skat-a-Roach which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act The article w " Guaranteed * Fleas wall cracks, int of the bed and be baited at th of 1910. as alleged to Kill to be misbranded * Fleas in that * * the following Bedbugs * statements, * For and Bedbugs Blow the powder thoroughly into floor and o corners, beneath rugs and carpets, into cracks and crevices around the baseboards. The basement and aUll floors should e same time. Allow to remain as long as possible and repeat when necessary. * the label were false and n article was labeled so as 1 Scientific leading V deceive i represented that the article when used as insecticide against fleas and bedbugs and w insects; whereas the article when used as d insecticide against fleas and bedbugs and Contact by reason of st mislead the pu directed would would act as a con directed would not would not act a Poison lid sta rchaser act as tact po act as s ", borne on tements the * since they an effective ison against an effective a contact poison against insects. On November 22, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant company and the court imposed a fine of $10. M. L. WILsoN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 1375. Misbranding of Crystal Gas. U. S. v. Stanley Drug Co. Plea of nolo contender. Fine, $25. (I. & F. no. 1736. Sample no. 69293-A.) This case was based on a shipment of Crystal Gas, an insecticide as defined by law, the labels of which bore unwarranted claims regarding its alleged effectiveness On No of Penn. filed in corporate April 5, of a qua meaning branded Moth vem sylv the on, against moths anc hber 28, 1934, the 1 ania, acting uponr district court an Philadelphia, Pa., 1934, from the State ntity of Crystal Gas, of the Insecticide Ac in that the following Exterminator Other insects 1 [2 Certain other insects. united States attorney for the Eastern District a report by the Secretary of Agri information against the Stanley Drug. alleging shipment by said company on o of Pennsylvania into the State of New which was a misbranded insecticide wit t of 1910. The article was alleged to statements, "Crystal Gas Paradichloro * Releases * Fatal * Crystal-Gas-Placed into an open flat small cloth bags at the top of a as a repellent to flying moths. in a bureau drawer will give Carpet Beetles. tightly closed. the larvae or ad Other Insects. I hv thc 11no f A i Cr To protect clo The gas vapors ult worms that coaches, ants an fQAl-f(ac nianoarld clothes' closet will give A teaspoonful or two the same results. * thing (woolens, furs, will penetrate through may be present. * Ld other i in hna.lr a Soff in a * * etc.). the * culture, Co., a r about Jersey, hin the be mis- benzene Moths container or into gas vapors acting cloth bag placed For Moths and Keep container clothing and kill For Roaches and nsects may be entirely exterminated f hnhAnrria annd hidnro- nlnoc whenrt. 1374. INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 1357-1375 Astogen: N Rose Manufacturing Co ... Atlas Disinfectant Outlet Sales Co., Inc .... _ Cedartex: Coddington, E. D., Manufac- turing Co-------.... --....... -- Rose Manufacturing Co -. -- Ciinoline C. H. C. Chemical Co ...... - Crystal Gas' Stanley Drug Co-......--.- Electric Moth Master: Teco Manufacturing Corpora- tion ...... ........_.... Florozone: Florozone, Inc........ ---- ------- Kleinfeld's, Dr., Bird Lice Powder: Paramount Pet Supply Co., Inc .. .. ... ... .. ... .. Flea Powder: Para mount Supply Inc -- -. .. .S - Medicated Flea Shampoo: Paramount Pet Supply Co., Inc .---. -... ----- --...--..- - Medina Brand Process Blue Dust: New York Insecticide Co., ----- --- - --a------------------- ('opper Arsenic Dust: New York Insecticide Co., In ----.... . J. No. 1368 1366 1362 1368 1359 1375 1367 1369 1363 1363 1363 1360 1360 Mothex Cedarized Odora Co., organic Cleanser: United Stat Tablets : Inc -----.....- .... -- Chemical Inc --------- ------ -- Paris green: Los Angeles Chemical Co Pine Disinfectant: Chemical Compounding portion ------------- Kohn Eugene ........ Reefer's No-Moth Sets: Reefer-Galler, Inc....... Refills: Reefer-Galler, Inc Savol Antiseptic: Savol Chemical C Sentaroma: Velray. Inc-_ Skat-a-Roach: Cor- - -a-- - - - -- - - ---------- o0- -- Skat-a-Rat Corporation---.. Supersan Animal Soft Soap: Chemical Compounding Cor- poration --------.......... -.. Kohn, Eugene .-. ---...---...... Clortox: Chemical Compounding Cor- poration --...-....-.. -...- Kohn, Eugene ....... .. Thermpak Moth Preventive: Thermwool Products Co., Inc. -- a a------ 1364 1358 1371 1357 1357 1365 1365 1361 1372 1374 1357 1357 1357 1357 1373 1370 1370 Vapoo: Lake, B. T_--- . Vapoo Products Co- , I S UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA lliI 1 26 ll 2 08582 4851111111111111 3 1262 08582 4851 |