Notices of judgment under the insecticide act

6ifr5
/*s~o4'


1636-1655


Issued April 1939


P'
H.
4

tatt
~ *1
*4:~ i**I.
*~ii'i't.
jj ~ ~*I[~* y
*n.
j i~:jJ pj;*~1
* II I


United


States


Department


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


ICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]


.., ., 1636-1655
. *..
* >.5.


Washington, D. C., Febru


Wliabrandlng of Nourse Gall Remedy. UI. S. v. 117 Cans of
Remedy. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
1803. Sample No. 11099-B.)
abeling of this veterinary product bore false and mislead
ions regarding its effectiveness as a treatment for mange.
'4il 30, 1935, the United States attorney for the Western
Itn, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
l-c urt a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 117 can
4edy at Seattle, Wash.; alleging that the article had been
|t0 commerce on or about November 23, 1934, from Kansa
. .Oil Co.; and charging misbranding in violation of the
alltice was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement
iet. shipped with it, "Mauge Mange on Live
b thold Pets are greatly benefited by its use," was false and


^ped ,o deceive and mislead the purchaser since the proi
Egctiye'treatment for all varieties of mange which infest liv
iqsehold pets.
, gtLicle also was alleged to be misbranded in violation of t
i'At as reported in notice of judgment No. 29019 published ui
'April 4, 1938, no answer to the libel having been filed,
ftatlon was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
i.: HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of A


" ..
i.|i?"


LI


in
RE
j


ary 11, 1939J
Nourse Gall
(I. & F. No.
ding repre-


District of
filed in the
s of Nourse
i shipped in


s


City, Mo.,
Insecticide


it appearing
Stock, Dogs
I misleading
ict was not
stock, dogs,

Le Food and
ler that act.
judgment of

7riculture.


1 qJawranding of Alba Brand Disinfeetant. U. S. v. Standard Drug Co., Ine.
^.. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. No. 2024. Sample No. 41960-C.)
| le,:lbeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
SiifettieDese as a disinfectant and as a control for lice on poultry, and
a&to deelare the inert ingredient present.
..t fl .ary 11, 1938, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia,
ulponi a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
..pn tion against Standard Drug Co., Inc., trading at WasMhitgo, 4,,
S"s ale by said defendant in the District of Columbia o or abo .Jfy
: 98',G of a Quantity of Alba Brand Disinfectant which a t ,misbranded


Agriculture


INSECTICIDE


ACT


by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture,


V


* ~;Pi'Ifl
7 4
n:'jIh


i


V m




I


400


INSECOilOIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that th
"guaranteed 5 to 6 times stronger bacteriologically than carbolic
fectant directions for floors, for water closets, urinals
sinks, rubbish heaps, garbage, use three tablespoonfuls to gallon of
room-use 1 tablespoonful to a gallon of water," and "poultry, h


from lice use two tablespoonfuls to gallon of water,"
bottle label, were false and misleading and by reason of the sa
the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchase
represented that it was five to six times stronger bacteriologically
acid; that it would act as an effective disinfectant for floors,


urinals, slop bowls, sinks, rubbish heaps, garbage,
the dilutions specified upon the label, and that it
when used as directed; whereas it was not five
logically than carbolic acid; it would not act as
floors, water closets, urinals, slop bowls, sinks,
used in the dilutions specified upon the label, and


and sick rooms


would be
to six tim
s an effec
garbage,
would not


If
acid," "disin-
, slop bowls,
water. Sick
elps rid bird


borne on the
id statements,
r in that they
than carbolic
water closets,
when used in


effective against lice
es stronger bacterio-
tive disinfectant for
and sickroom when
t be effective against


lice when used as directed unless the birds were sprayed repeatedly.
On January 11, 1938, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant


company and the court imposed a fine of $25.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1638, Misbranding of Insex Repellent. U. S. v. The De Pree Co., a corporation.
Plea of guilty, Fine, $200. (I. & F. No. 2047. Sample Nos. 41770-C,
41875-C.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its insecticidal properties, and it also failed to bear a statement of the per-
centage of inert ingredients contained in the article.
On June 20, 1938, the United States attorney for the Western District of
Michigan, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the De Pree Co., a corporation, Holland,
Mich., alleging shipment by said company on or about June 2 and December 10,
1937, from the State of Michigan into the State of Illinois of quantities of Insex
Repellent, which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (tube)


"Insex repellent
the skin where
Legs, Arms, Ne
effective *
Beach Camp
insects may be


** ** Effective *
ver exposed to the menace
ek, Face, Hands, Forehead,'
* keeps mosquitoes and o
Fishing Trip Golf Game
a source of annoyance anm


* Direction
of insect bil
' (carton) "I
their insects a
Picnic or any
I discomfort


gently into the skin wherever exposed to the menace of


s Rub Insex gent]
tes on the A
nsex repellent *
way F
outdoor occasion
Directions Rub
insect bites .


Ly into
nkles,
*
or the
where
Insex
on the


Ankles, Legs, Arms, Neek, Face, Hands, Forehead," borne on the labeling, were
false and misleading and by reason of the said statements, it was labeled and
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that said statements rep-
resented that.the article when used as directed, would be effective in keeping
mosquitoes and other insects away from the ankles, legs, arms, neck, face, hands,
and forehead wherever the skin was exposed to the menace of insec k bites
whereas when used as directed, it would not be effective for said purposes. The
article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially of
inert substances (substances other than essential oils), which do not prevent,
destroy, repel, or mitigate ismets, and the name and percentage amount of each
iI e ir nert substance or*< ?inreqi6t so present therein were not stated
irreetly jonthe tube and carton label; nor in lieu thereof were the
aI.li twaf':^^ atfcn n*c-.h a^jf.*.-c.^^fll:f .^ M :tAWh. 4..WA-f aj .An t ..n^K .tfwiMS-n^ ^ ^^ nh- n a* -^* 23 S I_ 1. / -JL J. a JA --. ---





1636-1655]


On June 4, 1938, the United St
acting upon a report by the Secre
information against the Superic
alleging shipment by said compa
of Texas into the State of Okla
misbranded fungicide within the
The article was alleged to be
Cleaner Cleans-Deodorizes-Di


Tile, Terrazzo Mt
of water. For W
Use one cup to t
Floors, Rubber F
other uses-such
Windows, Cork F
by reason of suc
purchaser in that
effective disinfec
floors; for wash


OF JUDGMENT


aites attorney for
tary of Agricult
r Chemical Co.
ny on or about
boma of a quan
meaning of the


I:'
[Si


irble, Linoleum an
lashing Toilets, T
wo gallons of wa
loors-Use one cuip
as washing AutE
loors," borne on t
h statements, it
they represented
tant for cleaning
ing toilets, toilet


aise
nfe
sd
'oll
ter.
Ito
omc
he
vas
tha
til
ftc


the
ure,
, a
Aug
itity
Inse


401


Southern District of Texas,
filed in the district court an
corporation, Houston, Tex.,
ust 16, 1937, from the State
of Cleanrite, which was a
cticide Act of 1910.


)randed in that the statements, "A Magic
ets Directions: For cleaning
similar floors-Use one cup to three gallons
?t Floors, Bath Tubs, Urinals, Cuspidors-
For Washing Painted Surfaces, Wooden
three gallons water. Cleanrite has various
)biles, Buses, Train Coaches, Street Cars,
drum label, were false and misleading and
labeled and branded so as to deceive the
t when used as directed, it would act as an
e, terrazzo marble, linoleum, and similar
ors, bathtubs, urinals, cuspidors, painted


surfaces, wooden floors, rubber floors, and for other uses such as washing auto-
mobiles, busses, train coaches, streetcars, windows, and cork floors; whereas the
said article when used as directed would not be effective for the said purposes.


It was alleged to
substance or ingr
fungi (bacteria),
ingredient was n
containing the a
amount of each


be misbi
edient, w
and the
ot stated
article; n4
and evei


andei
after,
name
plair
or in
ry sul


d further in that it c
which does not preve
and percentage amoi
ly and correctly on
lieu thereof were t]
bstance or ingredien


on
nt
iun
th
he
t


sisted
:, destr
t of sa
e label
name
of the


partially of an inert
oy, repel, or mitigate
id inert substance or
affixed to the drum
and the percentage
said article having


fungicidal (bactericidal) properties, and the total percentage of the inert sub-
stance or ingredient so present therein, stated plainly and correctly on the label.
Onr July 12, 1938, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and
the court imposed a fine of $50.


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1640. Adulteration and misbranding of Speed Disinfectant. U. S. v. Speed Chem-
ical Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (1. & F. No. 2050. Sample No.
7944-D.)
The labeling of this product failed to bear a correct statement of the name and
the percentage amount of the inert ingredient present, and did bear false and
misleading representations regarding its germicidal and insecticidal properties.
On August 19, 1938, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against the Speed Chemical Co., Inc., Brooklyn, N. Y., al-
leging shipment by said company on or about September 8, 1937, from the State
M'New York into the State of New Jersey of quantities of Speed Disinfectant,


which was an adulterated and misbrauded insecticide other than paris green
andlbad arsenate, and a fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of
1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that it fell below the professed
Standard! and quality under which it was sold, since it was labeled, "Inert
Material 10%"; whereas it contained inert ingredients in a proportion greater
than 10 percent.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Inert Material 10%"
And "Sick Room: Prevents Spread of Contagious Diseases. Kills Germs and
Bad Odors' *. Mosquitoes, Flies, Fleas, Lice, Ants, Cockroaches, etc.
qtileMy disappear where disinfectant is used," were false and misleading and
tip rnn ann t~n'rnart tha artinla wanr lahalaA an a on AcnaiuTw anI vnialaaA tha nvmnr


NOTICES





402


INSECTIOCIE ACT


J. I.* B
j :.f. :r r.^


destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi; and the name and the percentage
amount of the said inert substance were not stated plainly and correptWi
bottle label; nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount ofeai
substance or ingredient of the article having insecticidal or fungicidal ptq
and the total percentage of the inert substance or ingredient present the in
stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On September 15, 1938, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of th
and the court imposed a fine of $50. r
HARRY L. BROWN, At ing Secretary of Agricul ture.
1641. Misbranding of larkspur lotion. T. S. v. Jacob M. Ross (Jardel Labora-
tories Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 2046. Sample No.
58771-C).)
This product contained inert ingredients and its label failed to bear a statement
declaring the presence of such ingredients, and it contained a smaller percentage
of alcohol than declared on the label.
On May 4, 1938, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Penn-
sylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in htftir
court an information against Jacob M. Ross, trading as the Jardel Laboratories
Co., at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendant on or abouti huiy ,
1937, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey of
of larkspur lotion, which was a misbranded insecticide within the


the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to


be misbranded in that the statement "Alcohol 40%,"


borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading and by reason of as
ment, it was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaaserif
it did not contain alcohol in a proportion of 40 percent but did cont ai
amouInt.
The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially
of inert substances, water and alcohol, which do not prevent, destroy, repel, or
mitigate insects, and the name and percentage amount of each and every inert
ingredient were not stated plainly and correctly on the bottle label; nor in lieu
thereof were the name and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient
of the article having insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert
substances or ingredients so present therein stated plainly and correctly on the
bottle label.
On October 19, 1938, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
and the court imposed a fine of $50.


HAnEY LI. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agrioulture.


1642. Misbrandlng of Kills All Insect Spray. U. S. v. Hyman Polman and Morris
Welfeld, trading as Exeello Specialty Co. Pleas of guilty. Fine of $25
against each defendant. (I. & F. No. 2031. Sample Nos. 38101-C, 54579-C.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding
its insecticidal properties.
On August 19, 1938, the United States attorney, for the Eastern District of
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against Hyman Folman and Morris Welfeld,
trading as Excello Specialty Co., at Brtoklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment by said
defendants on or about March 15 and May 21, 1987, from the State of New York
into the States of New Jersey and Massachusetts of quantities of Kills All
Insect Spray which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Kills All
Insect Spray Kills Flies" and 'New Improved 100% Active Kills All Insect






1636-1655]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


403


1648. Misbranding of Peerless Disinfectant. U. S. v. J. Wayne
Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Flune, $100 and costs.
Sample No. 19566-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading repre
ing its disinfectant properties, it failed to bear a statement decl
of inert ingredients, and it represented the product to be non
was poisonous.
On September 26, 1938, the United States attorney for the
of Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, I
court an information against J. Wayne Perkins, trading as the
Co., at Des Moines, Iowa, alleging shipment by said defendant c
1938, from the State of Iowa into the State of Illinois of a qu
Disinfectant, which was a misbranded fungicide within thl


Perkins (Peerless
(I. & F. No. 2062.
sentations regard-
aring the presence
poisonous when it

Southern District
filed in the district
Peerless Chemical
n or about May 3,
lantity of Peerless
e meaning of the


Insecticide Act of 1910.
SThe article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of
inert substances, to wit, substances other than sodium hypochlorite, which do not
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria) and the name and percentage
amount dt each and every substance or ingredient so contained in the article
were not stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the jugs containing
the article; nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount of each
substance or ingredient of the article having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties
and the total percentage of the inert substances or ingredients so present therein
stated plainly and correctly on the label.
, The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements,
"Non-Poisonous" and "A Deodorant Antiseptic Disinfectant Direc-
tions: To cleanse, purify, deodorize and disinfect bath tubs, bed pans, cham-
bers, boxes, bins, cupboards, cellars, outdoor closets, cuspidors, slop jars, fruit
Jars, floors, woodwork, garbage cans, glassware, kennels, lunch baskets, ham-
pers, milk bottles and cans, musty odors, refrigerators, stables, barns, toilets,
wash-bowls, water-closets, water coolers and windows-Mop, scrub, wash or
spray thoroughly with one ounce of Peerless Disinfectant To Each gallon of
water," borne on the jug labels, were false and misleading, and by reason of
said statements, the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mis-
lead the purchaser since they represented that it was not poisonous and that
when used as directed, it would disinfect bathtubs, bed paus, chambers, boxes,
bins,..cupboards, cellars, outdoor closets, cuspidors, slop jars, fruit jars, floors,
woodwork, garbage cans, glassware, kennels, lunch baskets, hampers, milk bot-
tles and cans, musty odors, refrigerators, stables, barns, toilets, washbowls,
water closets, water coolers, and windows and would be an effective disin-
fectant for the purposes mentioned in the dilutions specified; whereas the
article was poisonous and when used as directed, it would not disinfect the
places and things above indicated and would not be an effective disinfectant for
the purposes mentioned in the dilutions specified.
On October 31, 1938, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


1644. Adulteration and mlabranding of Sulfostlek, Sulpho, Arse
and Bordosteik; misbranding of Nico and Nicostlek.
Hose Insecticide Co. Plea of gultty. Fine, $100. (I.
Sample Nos. 12884-C, 12885-C, 34125-C, 34126-C, 34127-C,
The labeling of these products bore false and misleading
regarding their alleged insecticidal and fungicidal properties.
the Sulpho, the Arseno, the Arsenostick, and the Bordostick c
stance or substances injurious to vegetation when used as direa


Agriculture.


no, Arsenostick,
U. S. v. Garden
& F. No. 2048.
34128-C.)
representations
The Sulfostick,
contained a sub-
ted. Th Inhaela






404


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., 1 4.


States of Oregon and Illinois of a number of Garden Hose Insect Sp
and various lots of the above-named products, which were mnse.etl cie
fungicides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910, and whilth wite
misbranded, and with the exception of the Nico and Nicostick, l
adulterated.
The Sulfostick was alleged to be adulterated in that it was intended for
use on vegetation and contained a substance or substances injurious to vegeta-
tion when used as directed by the label. It was alleged to be nii
that the statements "Active ingredients Stilphur, not less than 35 per cent.
Inert ingredients 65 per cent" were false, misleading, and deceptive in that
they represented that the article consisted of sulfur as the active ingredient;
whereas it consisted of potassium polysulfide and potassium thiosulf.e, as
the active ingredients. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that
the carton containing a portion, the boxes containing the remainder, a a
booklet shipped with the latter bore false, misleading, and deceptiveft r
tions regarding the effectiveness of the article as a control for m.t
black spot diseases, scabs, leaf spots, and all other fungous diseases; an its effec-
tiveness to control and repel all scales, ants and all other insects a
sulfur, and all bugs.
The Nico was alleged to be misbranded in that a booklet shipped with it
contained false, misleading, and deceptive representations regarding its efec-
tiveness against thrips, mites, red spider, worms, caterpillars, orc d
bugs, white fly, mealybugs, and leaf miners.
The Sulpho was alleged to be adulterated in that it was intended fot1
on vegetation and contained a substance or substances injurious to vet
when used thereon as directed min the booklet shipped with the rticle I
was alleged to be misbranded in that said booklet bore false, misleaudinj ,n
deceptive representations regarding its effectiveness as a control fr all M-
dews, rusts, black spot diseases, scabs, leaf spots, all other fungous
and its effectiveness against all scales, ants, and all other insect a
by sulfur.
The Arseno was alleged to be adulterated in that it was intended" fork *
on vegetation and contained a substance or substances injurious to vegetation
when used thereon as directed in an accompanying booklet. It wisa lr
to be misbranded in that it contained arsenic and the total amount 0t
present (expressed as percentum of metallic arsenic) was not stated on the
label and the amount of arsenic in water-soluble form (expressed as
centum of metallic arsenic) was not stated on the label. It was alleged
misbranded further in that the said booklet contained false, misleadg
deceptive representations regarding the effectiveness of the article ag s i
chewing insects. f
The Arsenostick was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and pr
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold si ce
it was labeled "Active ingredients Arsenate of Lead, not less than 5 jer
cent. Inert ingredients 75 per cent," whereas it contained lead arsenafat in'a
proportion less than 25 percent and inert ingredients in a proportion greater
than 75 percent. It was alleged to be adulterated further in that it contained
a substance or substances injurious to vegetation when used thereon as di-
rected on the label. It was alleged to be misbranded in that he teifld
on the label, "Active ingredients Arsenate of lead, not less than 25 per cent.
Inert ingredients 75 per cent," were false, misleading, and deceptive since
it contained less than 25 percent of lead arsenate and more than 75 percent of
inert ingredients. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it contained


nrfinimoT 2nil tha sTninnt tf' c


rPC!nio in rinr ovl-alTIMQl fnPrvm


Invrnortcond oc Tno.


4






1U36--1655]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


405


ousne to vegetation when used thereon
was alleged to be misbranded in that
carton label was false, misleading, and


the article consisted of bordeaux mixture;
deaux mixture but did consist in whole or
polysulfide, potassium thiosulfate, copper s
alleged to be misbranded further in that
abd deceptive representations regarding its
red spiders, ants, "other insects affected by
dess when used as directed in the control
Other fungous diseases.
The Sulpho, Nico. Arseno, and a portion


be misbranded further in that the
Insecticides Are suitable for use
or tree which might be infested
Old Reliable killing agents which
these insecticides in cartridge fort
water passing through the Garde
formulas recommended by the lead
shipped with each of the articles,
they represented that each of the


be a reliable killing agent on most any
which might be infested with fungi or
passing through the hose sprayer at a
mended by the leading entomologists; w
and would not be a reliable killing agent
Shrub, or tree which might be infested
dissolve in water passing through the h
formulas recommended by the leading en
The Sulpho, Nico, Arseno, and Bord'


further in that they consisted part
which do not prevent, destroy, r<
name- and percentage amount of
eamh of the articles were not sta


hr lien th
fgredient
of the ine
"On July
the court


icreof were thE
of the articles
rt substances p
S5, 1938, a plea
imposed a fine


iall
epel
eac
ted


y
,


as directed on the carton label. It
the word "Bordostick," borne on the
deceptive in that it represented that


whereas
in part
ulfide, a
the car
effective
Bordo,"
of all I


; it 1
of a
nd c
ton
ness
and
)lack


ai

0
b
a
b


of the Sulfostick


Following statements, "Gard
on most any kind of flowerii
with fungi or insects. The:
have proven the best. *
a, chemically proportioned to
n Hose Sprayer, at a ratio
ling Entomologists," appearing
were false, misleading, and d
articles would be suitable for


kind of f
insects,
ratio coi
hereas it
t on mos


lowering plan
and would d
isistent with
would not be
t any kind of


id not consist of bor-
mixture of potassium
paper sulfate. It was
ore false, misleading,
.s a control for scales,
)ugs, and its effective-
spot diseases and all


were


alleged


en Hose Bi
ng plant, si
y are the I
We su
dissolve in
consistent
Sin the boo
eceptive in
use and w


t, shrub,
issolve in
formulas
suitable i
flowering


rand
hrub
Four
pply
the
with
iklet
that
would


or tree
water
recom-
:or use
plant,


with fungi or insects, and would not
ose sprayer at a ratio consistent with


ktomologists.
stick were alleged
of inert substances,
or mitigate insects


h and
plainly


every
and


inert su
correctly


Same and percentage amount
having insecticidal properties an
resent therein stated plainly and
Sof guilty was entered on behalf
of $100.


of
d t


to be misbranded
namely, substances
or fungi, and the
bstance present in
on the label; nor
each substance or
he total percentage


correctly on the label.
of the defendant and


HARRY


L. BROWN, Acting


Secretary


Agricult ure.


1045. Adulteration and misbranding of Baunt's Chlorinated Cleanser. U. S. v.
34 Cans of Baum's Chlorinated Cleanser. Default decree of condemnation
and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2068. Sample No. 26346-D.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations re-
garding its so-called bactericidal, disinfectant, sterilizing, and deodorant prop-
erties. It contained less available chlorine than that declared on the label.
On or about August 24, 1938, the United States attorney for the District


of Connecticut, acting upon a report by the Secretary of
the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation
Chlorinated Cleanser at Waterbury, Coun.; alleging that


Agriculture, filed in
of 34 cans of Baum's
the article had been


shipped in interstate commerce on or about March 15, 1938, by Baum's Castorine
Co., Inc., from Rome, N. Y.; and charging adulteration and misbranding mi
violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
TPha r 44 l n70 ci-?/>/ lnnnC3A 1a lir^ tnhI nAjll fn..n 4-na1 t.. 4-in~n d- 4lta A r^-n 4nj-wtn.4 CC A nhi5 wa




'I U, -


406


INSECTICIDE ACT


glasses. Use 200 P. P.M. solution % oz (1% heaping teaspoons) per galbon
of water. Immerse glasses no less than 10 Seconds and rinse with clean Wte,"
"To kill mold and wild yeast around plant, use 8 heaping teaspoons in 1 quar
water," "Strength Chlorine To Use 25 .P.M. for soaking
suits, blankets, 50 P. P. M. for rinsing dishes, bottles, cutlery, glasses, 100 P.P. M.
for rinsing pipes, cans, pails, vats, bake pans, meat and poultry hooks," "How
Is It Mixed? Chart 'o oz. (% heaping teaspoons) in 1 gal. water makes 50
P. P. M. 3o oz. (% heaping teaspoons) in 1 gal. water makes 100 P. P. M. 5o oz.
(1% heaping teaspoons) in 1 gal. water makes 200 P. P. M. 1 oz. (3 heaping tea-
spoons) in 1 gal. water makes 500 P. P. M. 4 oz. (12 heaping teaspoons) in 1
gal. water makes 2000 P. P. M. To obtain perfectly clear solution without
precipitate, dissolve 4 Ibs. of Chlorinated Cleaner in 3 gallons of water. tTGE
stand 1 hour, then pour off clear solution. Use of this clear solution as follows:
% pint (%4 teacup) above solution in 3 gals. water makes 50 P. P. M. 4 pint
(% teacup) above solution in 3 gals. water makes 100 P. P. M. % pint j(1 ea-
cup) above solution in 3 gals. water makes 200 P. P. M. 1% pint (3 teacup) above
solution in 3 gals. water makes 500 P. P. M.," "As a sterilizer, flush the bottles
or equipment," "Before milking, it is well to wipe the cow's udder with clein
cloth, and fresh Baum's Cleanser 200 P. P. M. solution before milking each cow.
Use fresh pail of solution after each 8 cows. Wring cloth outit weill zi&
dry udders," "As Bactericide for general farm and household use, refrigerators,
bread boxes, garbage cans, etc., first rinse parts to be cleaned with clean, hot
water, rub clean and then apply a solution of 1 heaping teaspoonful (% oz.)
Baum's Cleaner to each 1 quart of water. Rinse well with warm water and
dry," "To help sterilize utensils in breweries, carbonated beverage pliEts,


syrup
fuls)


jars, beer glasses, bottles, coils, pipes, use 1% oz. (4% heaping teaspoon-
to 3 gallons of water. Rinse well with clean hot water before usmng


chlorine. Better germ killing is obtained by immersing for 10 minutes or
longer. Clean beer pipes twice a week. 90-hour intervals. Use pressure za-
chine or hand pump suction or force cleaner. Let stand in pipes 10 minutes
or longer," and "To deodorize and disinfect by spray floors, sinks, an
use 3 heaping teaspoonfuls in 1 gallon of water. For sick room utensils, use
1% heaping teaspoons in 1 gallon of water, let soak 5 minutes," borne on the
can labels, were false and misleading and by reason of the said statements the
article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the prj
since they represented that it would disinfect beer glasses; would kill mlod
and wild yeast around plant; and would disinfect bathing suits, blankets,
dishes, bottles, cutlery, glasses, pipes, cans, pails, vats, bake pans, meat and
poultry hooks; that it was an effective disinfectant in the dilution specfieT


would
specific
would


make solutions containing the parts per million of available Chlorin
ed in the label when diluted as directed; that it was a sterilizer; that it
be effective as a disinfectant for the outside of udders; and would dis-


infect drains and be an
when used as directed;
and would not kill mold a
would not disinfect bat
pipes, cans, pails, vats,


effective disinfectant for sp
whereas the article would n<
nd wild yeast around the plan
thing suits, blankets, dishes,
bake pans, meat and poultry


raying floors and
ot disinfect beer
t when used as dii
bottles, cutlery,
hooks unless thi


been previously cleaned; it was not an effective disinfectant
specified; the article would not make solutions containing the
of available chlorine specified in the label when diluted as dir
a sterilizer; would not be effective as a disinfectant for the o
would not disinfect drains and would not be an effective disini
ing floors and sinks when used As directed.


in the di
parts per


sinks.
glasses
rected;
glasses,
ey had
lutions
million


ected; it was not
outside of udders,
rectant for spray-


S -






1636-1655]


NOTICES


407


City, Utah, alleging shipment by said company on or about January 24, 1968,
from the State of Utah into the State of Wyoming of a quantity of Lovinger's
Odorless Disinfectant, which was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement "Contains 1.3%
Available Chlorine," borne on the jug label, represented that its standard and
quality were such that it contained available chlorine in a proportion of not less
than 1.3 percent; whereas its strength and purity fell below the professed stand-
ard and quality under which it was sold in that it contained available chlorine in
a proportion of less than 1.3 percent.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Contains
1.3% Available Chlorine" and "Disinfecting and Sterilizing Drinking and Eating
Receptacles-Use one part Odorless Disinfectant to 100 parts water. This will
pass state requirements," "A powerful and effective Germicide-Disinfectant-
* Drains, Sinks and Tubs: Mix Odorless Disinfectant with thirty parts
of water, wash out and pour into pipes Refrigerators, Spray or wash
the refrigerator or ice box frequently, using one part of Odorless Disinfectant
to 30 parts of water. Bed pans, other Sick Room Receptacles: Dilute
Odorless Disinfectant 30 times with water and wash or rinse thoroughly. For
Drains: Rinse milk cans and other receptacles used with Odorless Disinfectant
diluted 30 or 40 times with water. Will leave them sweet, sanitary and whole-


some," "Sterilizing Surgeon's
infectant diluted 30 times in
receptacle," borne on the jug
the said statements the article
chaser in that said statement
chlorine in a proportion of
drinking and eating receptacle


and that wh
refrigerators,
surgeon's ins
proportion ofl
effective to st
The article


Instruments: Completely immerse in Odorless Dis-
water, preparing both in glass, enamel or granite
label, were false and misleading and by reason of
e was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the pur-
ts represented that the article contained available
not less than 1.3 percent; that it would sterilize
es and would disinfect them when used as directed,


en used as directed, it
ice boxes, bedpans and
truments; whereas the
Less than 1.3 percent,
erilize and disinfect the
was alleged to be misbr.


would disinfect
sickroom recep
article contain
and when used
said objects.
handed further in


drains, sinks, tubs, pipes,
tackles and would sterilize
d available chlorine in a
as directed, would not be


that it consisted partially


of inert substances, other than Chloramine-T,


destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria) and the nai
'of each inert substance or ingredient so present in
stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the
lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount of
or ingredient of the article having fungicidal bacteriai
total percentage of the inert substances or ingredients
plainly and correctly on the jug label.
On October 12, 198S, a plea of guilty was entered
court imposed a fine of $27.


which substances do not prevent,


ne and percentage amount


the said article were not
Sjug containing it; nor in
each and every substance
cidal) properties, and the
so present therein, stated
by the defendant and the


HARRY L. BROWN, Actin.g Secretary of Agriculture.


1647. Misbranding of Zoro Moth Balls, Zoro Naphthalene Cakes, Zorex Crystals,
Zoro Para Cakes, and Zorex Moth Killer. U. S. v. 9 Dozen Packages of
Zoro Moth Balls, et al. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
(I. & F. No. 2057. Sample Nos. 21629-D, 21630-D, 21632-D, 21633-D, 21635-D.)
The net weight of Zoro Moth Balls, Zorex Crystals, and Zoro Para Cakes at
the time of examination was found to be less than the amount declared on
the labeling. The Zoro Naphthalene Cakes and Zorex Moth Killer bore false and
misleading representations on the labeling regarding their effectiveness in the
.l~w Ja s1 AS dm.m ~A .






408


INSECTICIDE


ACT


were labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchawr
the packages contained less than the amounts declared.
The remaining products were alleged td be misbranded in that the sta
(Zoro Naphthalene Cakes) "Rose Kills Moths & Moth Larvae A Hole In
Each Cake For Hanging Directions Place with woolens, garments
in trunks, chests, clothes bags or boxes. Use 1 cake to 5 cubic feet of space
in air-tight containers," and (Zorex Moth Killer) "Zorex 'Just tH
Delightfully Perfumed Moth Killer Deodorant For Moth Prevention For Wool-
ens, Garments, Furs, in air-tight trunks, chests, drawers, clothes bags or boxes,
use one Zorex to 20 cubic feet of combined space," borne on the package
were false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements, the articles were
labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that the
statements represented that the articles would be effective against moths under
all conditions; whereas they would not be effective against moths under all
conditions.
On August 30, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the products were ordered destroyed.
HARRY LI. BnOWN, Acting Secretary of Agric
1648. Misbranding of Kovam. U, S. v. Three 5-Gallon Drums, et al. o6 Kovam.
Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & ". No. 2054.
Sample Nos. 771-D, 772-D.)
This product contained inert ingredients, and its label failed to bear
ment declaring the percentage of such inert ingredients and also bore false a
misleading representations regarding its phenol coefficient and its alleged
fungicidal and disinfectant properties.
On May 31, 19388, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
Florida, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the is-
trict court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of eight various-sizd
drums of Kovam at Miami, Fla.; alleging that the article had been shippedl
in interstate commerce on or about January 15, 1938, by the Kovam Co. from
New York, N. Y.; and charging misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act


of 1910.


The


article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements


"Inert Material 84%,"


(portion of drums)


"Kovam has


a


6. B. Typhi and 1.7 Staph A.," (remainder of drums) "Ko
efficient of 6 (E-Typhi) and 1.7 to 2 Staph. Aureus F.
false and misleading, and by reason of said statements, the
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser since they represe
inert material in a proportion of not more than 84 percent
coefficient of not less than 6 (Ebertteda typhi) and 1.7 (Sta


Phe
vam
D. A
artic
nted
: tha


(all drums)


nol co-efficient of
has a phenol co-
. Method," were
lIe was labeled so
that it contained
t it had a phenol


phiyvlococcus aureusa) ;


whereas it contained inert material in a proportion of more than 84 percent and
had an E. typhi phenol coefficient of less than 6 and a 8taph. aureus phenol co-
efficient of less than 1.7.
Misbranding was alleged further in that the statements, "Kovam A Scientif-
ically Prepared Germicide For Absolute Antisepsis Kovam, the incom-
parable Germicide," borne on certain drums, and "Disinfectant *
Directions: Mix 4 fluid ozs. of Kovam to each gallon of water for use in Hospitals,
Sanitariums, Hotels, Municipal Buildings, Court Houses. Penal Institutions, Office
Buildings, Factories, Government Buildings, Schools, Colleges, Halls, and Club
Rooms, Railroad Stations and all other business, private or public institutions,"
borne on the remainder of the drums, were false and misleading and by reason
of the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the
t^-:wu.nt.nfl.f /-. I 4k n~a 4 1, a.~ Jnn nMJfl 4at-tI^Wi^'^ *:A.4 :4-I.. .nj^ii nn nn nS 42k a S F.A f... .. 4.a. 4-T A ~~ a- n .4 nf l a


11






1636-1655]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


409


On August 15, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.


HARRY L. BEowN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1649. Adulteration


and


misbranding


of Dry-Dip


Insecticide.


v. Eleven


25-Pound Pails of Dry-Dip Insecticide. Default decree of condemnation
and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2063. Sample No. 19567-D.)


This product contained smaller proporti
larger proportion of total inert ingredients
On August 15, 1938, the United States at
acting upon a report by the Secretary of
a libel praying seizure and condemnation
Insecticide at Bricelyn, Minn., alleging that
state commerce on or about March 1, 1938,


Nebr.; and charging
Act of 1910.


ons of naphthalene and
than declared on the la
attorney for the District
Agriculture, filed in the
of eleven 25-pound pai
the article had been sh
by Miller Chemical Co.


sulfur and a
bel.
of Minnesota,
district court
Is of Dry-Dip
ipped in inter-
from Omaha,


adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Insecticide


The article was alleged to be
Ingredients Naphthalene 30.00 Sodi
Sulphur 10.00 Inert Ingredients
label affixed to the pails, represent
that it contained naphthalene in a
in a proportion of not less than 10
of not more than 58.24 percent; w
professed standard and quality ui
less than 30 percent of naphthalei
ingredients in excess of 58.24 perci


The article
borne on the 1
it was labeled
On October
was entered a


adulterated
umr Fluoride
Calcium, Po
ted that its
proportion o
percent. and
hereas its st


under
ne, l
ent.


which
ess than


in that


the state


.25 Creosote Oil 1,
. Tobacco 58.24,"
standard and qua
f not less than 30
inert ingredients i
rength and purity


it was sold in tha
S10 percent of sul


ments, "Active
.50 Nicotine .01
borne on the


lity were such
percent, sulfur
n a proportion
fell below the
it it contained
lfur, and inert


was alleged to be misbranded in that the above-quoted statements
abel were false and misleading, and by reason of said statements,
and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
25, 1938, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation
.nd it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1650. MIsbranding of Trojan Vapor WV
of Trojan Vapor Wax. Default
(I. & F. No. 2056. Sample Nos. 8715-
The labeling of this product bore fals1
ing its so-called germicidal and antisep


On June


, 1938,


the


Indiana, acting upon a
district court a libel pray
half-gallon cans of Troja
article had been shipped
by Trojan Products & I
misbranding in violation


United States
report by the
ing seizure and
n Vapor Waxs
in interstate c
Manufacturing


(


The article was alleged
cidal Dustless Sweepless
antiseptic and healthful.
to breathe," were false a
was labeled and branded I
represented that it was g
ful, and would make the
cidal, would not render r
the air healthful to breath]
fl^_ s A---------- -i nf 4 flflfl-


ax. U. S. v. Ten 1-GaUllon
decree of condemnation and
-D, 8716-D.)
e and misleading represent
tic properties.
attorney for the Northern
Secretary of Agriculture,
Condemnation of 10 gallon
at South Bend, Ind.; alleg
commerce on or about Janu


Co. from


)f the Insecticide Act
to be misbranded in
Method *
* and its fr


nd mis
so as toc
ermicid
air her
ooms a
he.
i i--- --


lea
Sd
al,
iltl


ding,
receive
woul
hful t


of
that
Its
a ra


and by r
and misli
d render
o breathe


antiseptic and


Chic
1910.
the
frag
nces
easo
ead
room
; wh


ago, Ill.; a

statements,
rance render
make the a
n of said st
the purchase
is antiseptic
ereas it wa!


healthful,


would


Cans, et al.,
destruction.


tions regard-


SDistrict of
filed in the
cans and 23
ing that the
ary 26, 1938,
nd charging


"The Germi-
rs the room
ir healthful
:atements, it
.r since they
and health-
s not germi-
ld not make


A- -. -- I S





410


INSECfTICTDE A CT


[N. J., I. F.


into the State of West Virginia of a quantity of Fly and Insect Spray, which
was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act t
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Bang!
They're Gone Fly and Insect Spray 100 Per Cent Active Ingrediets K
iies To Kill Flies Close the doors and windows of the
room and charge the air with Spray, leaving the room closed for 1 5 or 20
minutes, after which the dead insects can be swept up. Be sure to
:Spray to every part of the room. Spraying into the draft of an electric fan
is an excellent method," "To Kill Bedbugs Apply the Spray freely in fhes cracks
and corners of the bed as well as in the seamed edge of the mattress and the
little cotton knots that hold it together," "To Kill Fleas The Spray is very
effective against animal fleas. In applying it to dogs and cats, spray lightly
into the hair. Do not rub it in," "The Spray is harmless to the skpf
*or animal, It contains nothing of a poisonous nature," borne on the
bottle label, were false and misleading and by reason of said sfatemehtS f
-article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in
that they represented that when used as directed, it would be effective agaIfst
flies, all bedbugs and fleas and that it was not poisonous and was harmlessrt
the skin of man or animal; whereas when used as directed, it w
effective against flies, it would not be effective against all bedbugs and agams"nt
fleas unless it was applied repeatedly, it was not nonpoisonous, and
be harmful to the skin of man or animal.
On December 5, 1938, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
*and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
HAnY L. BRowN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture:
1652. Misbranding of Koton-Tox and dry mixture or filler. U. S. v. Jack OLeuary
and J. Emnmett Thnompson (O'Leary Chemical Co.). Pleas of guilty.
Fines, $100. (I. & F. No. 1934. Sample Nos. 69027-B, 69028-B,
The labeling of these products bore false and misleadingreprese
:garding their effectiveness in the control of insects. The Koton-Tox contained
arsenic and arsenic in water-soluble form. These were not declared, nor
the inert ingredients present declared.
At the January 1938 term of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma, the United States attorney, acting upon a report by the
:Secretary of Agriculture, filed an information against Jack O'Leary and J. Em-
amett Thompson, officers of the O'Leary Chemical Co. at the time of the shipment
hereinafter mentioned, an Oklahoma corporation trading at Chickasha, Okla.,
alleging shipment by said defendant on or about April 4, 1936, from the State of
Oklahoma into the State of Mississippi of a quantity of Koton-Tox and dry


mixture or filler, which were misbranded insecticides other than
lead arsenate within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
It was alleged in the first count of the information that t
or filler was znisbranded in that the statements, "This bag con
of dry mixture or filler, to be used with Koton-Tox for the
weevil and other insect damage," borne on the label, were false


paris green and
he dry mixture


tains
cont
and


and by reason thereof the article was labeled and branded so as
and mislead the purchaser in that they represented that the article
as intended with Koton-Tox, would make a preparation that would


80 pounds
rol of boll
misleading
to deceive
when used
control the


cotton bol1 weevil and all other insect damage; whereas it would not make a
preparation that would control the cotton boll weevil and all other insect
damage when used with Koton-Tox.


The second count alleged misbranding Of the Koton-T
bnwvh atoToTi nto nrhtmn warnaa GPanSQ d m ilclniOMYina aTnd


ox in that its labeling
bW mc aa rnn I-1oronf it





1636-1655]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


411


On November 14, 1938, the defendants entered pleas of
imposed a fine of $50 against each defendant on count 1.
were dismissed.


guilty and the court
The remaining counts


HAnY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1653. Adulteration and misbranding of Reeos Redhlor, Ress Chlor, and Pur-A-
Chlor. U. S. v. 119 Cans of Receos Reehlor (and 2 similar seizure actions).
Default decrees of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. Nos. 2081,
2082, 2085. Sample Nos. 31286-D, 31940-D, 42923-D.)
These products contained smaller amounts of available chlorine and calcium
hypochlorite than declared on the label, and a larger amount of inert ingredients-
than declared. The labeling bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing their disinfectant and germicidal properties.


On October 5, 21,


Pennsylv
district
chlor, 8
alleging
period fi


District of
filed in the
of Recos Re
burgh, Pa.;
within the


and
ania,
court
cases
that
rom


31, 1938. the United
acting upon reports
t libels praying seizu
s of Ress Chlor, and
the articles had bee
on or about May 18


Sta
by
re a
143
n sh
to


tes
the


ippe
oni


attorney for the
Secretary of Agr
condemnation of
s of Pur-A-Chlor
d in interstate c
or about August


Western
culture,
119 cans
at Pitts-
ommerce
1, 1938,.


by the J. A. Tumbler Laboratories from Baltimore, Md.; and charging adultera-
tion and misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The articles were alleged to be adulterated in that their strength and purity


fell below the professed
namely: (Recos Rechlor
cium Hypochlorite 18%.
6%"; (Ress Chlor) "Acti
Inert Ingredients 36% *
fecting 100 p. p.


standard or quality under whi
and Pur-A-Chlor) "Active Ingredi
Inert Ingredients 36% *
ve Ingredients Calcium
Available Chlorine 6%
m. of Available chlorine."


ch they were
ients *
Available Ch
Hypochlorite,
* For


sold,
Cal-
lorine
18%.
Disin-


Misbranding was alleged in that the statements, "Active Ingredients Alkaline
Sodium Phosphate 46% Calcium Hypochlorite 18% Inert Ingredients 36%
* Available Chlorine 6%," borne on the labels of all the articles, were
false and misleading and by reason thereof, the articles were labeled so as to
deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they contained less than 18 percent of
calcium hypochlorite, less than 6 percent of available chlorine, and more than
36 percent of inert ingredients.
Misbranding was alleged further in that the following statements on the can


label, "Process 1:-For
final rinse. By this proc
First dissolve % ounce of
a clean receptacle. This
of 200 parts per million (
immerse them in the sol


disinfecting glassware, dishes,
ess we recommend this product
this powder to each gallon of w
solution will provide available
200 p. p. m.). Wash utensils in


ution above


for a minimum of


silverware
as a germ
ater used.
chlorine in
a proper r
two minute


r
I
e


etc., in a
cidal rinse.
Always use
a strength
manner then
s *


Process 2:-This process may be used for combination washing and disinfecting
of Bar China and Glassware and is not recommended for glassware or china that
does not rinse easily. First: Rinse glass or chinaware under running water
(preferably hot) so that as much of the organic matter as is possible is removed.
Second: Then wash articles in a solution made up of % ounce this powder dis-
solved in 1 gallon of water (see process 1. This mixture produces a solution of
200 p. p. m. available chlorine.) Third: Rinse articles again under running water
and place on drainboard in an inverted position to dry. This last rinsing in clear
running water removes odor of chlorine. You do not have to polish the glassware


If process 2 is used as by this method glasses ar
localities have health inspection. Consult your
meant; if they recommend only 100 p. p. m. of a
only 1: ounce of this material need be used per


e left clear and sparkling.


Some


inspector or local health depart-
vailable chlorine for disinfecting,
gallon of water. Different locall-
aS ____ wwnI t 1.1 .. a LI IIA .A & J an.- ---a -





412


INSECTICIDE


ACT


1654. Misbranding of Ritz Beer Coil Cleaning Compound. U. S. v. 14 .arnqof
Ritz Coil Cleaning Compound. Default decree of eondemnat t
destruction. (I. & F. No. 2088. Sample No. 41958-D.)
This product contained inert ingredients and its label failed to bear the nm
and percentage amount of such inert ingredients.
On November 12, 1938, the United States attorney for the Eastern "sf o
Ag ~ ;*cult **;^*rel**
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 144 cans o eits er
Coil Cleaning Compound at Allentown, Pa.; alleging that the article b
shipped on or about March 26, 1938, by the Ritz Chemical Co. of Newy
-^b :"k brK di g of^ SK^^*
from Newark, N. J.; and charging misbanding in violation of the Inset
of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it consisted partilauri
substances, namely, substances other than sodium hydroxide, which dto
vent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria), and the name and percentage
amount of each inert substance or ingredient present in the articlewer t
stated plainly and correctly on the can label; nor in lieu thereof were theri e
and percentage amount of each substance or ingredient of the article
fungicidal (bactericidal) properties and the total percentage of the ime
stances present therein stated plainly and correctly on the can labeL
The libel alleged that the article was also misbranded in violation of
eral Caustic Poison Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 87, published under
that act.
On January 3, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of conde
was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Ag
1655. Adulteration and misbranding of Klgerm. U. S. v. Twenty 3-Pound
Cans of Kilgerm. Default decree of condemnation and destruction
(I. & F. No. 2073. Sample No. 23097-D.)
This product contained less active chlorine and more inert substances ta
declared on the label. Its labeling bore false and misleading represetatis
regarding its disinfectant properties.
On or about September 27, 1938, the United States attorney for t
of Montana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, ile it
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of twenty 3-pou
of Kilgerm at Missoula, Mont.; alleging that the article had been ship
interstate commerce on or about May 29, 1937, by the Midwestern Soo.
from Denver, Colo.; and charging adulteration and misbranding in violm
the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement "Active tn-
gredient Chlorine 17% Inert Material 83%," borne on the can label, represented
that the standard and quality of the article were such that it contained chlorine
as the active ingredient in a proportion of not less than 17 percent, and con-
tained inert material in a proportion of not more than 83 percent; whereas
its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality under
which it was sold in that it contained chlorine as the active ingredient in a
proportion of less than 17 percent and inert material in a proportion of more
than 83 percent.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "Active
Ingredient Chlorine 17% Inert Material 83%," borne on the can label, was
false and misleading and by reason of the said statement it was labeled and
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser. It was alleged to be
misbranded further in that the statements, "A chlorine disinfectant for use in
washing glasses, dishes and silverware Directions For best results
a S 9- *- fl- .t -&
























INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 1636-1655


Alba Brand Disinfectant:
Standard Drug Co., Inc.
Arseno:


N.
-- -. -


Garden Hose Insecticide Co-
Arsenostick:
Garden Hose Insecticide Co-s
Baum's Chlorinated Cleanser:


Baum's Castorine
Bordostick:
Garden Hose Inse
Cleanrite:
Superior Chemical
Dry-Dip Insecticide:
Miller Chemical C
Dry mixture (or filler) :


Fly a
Insex


O'Leary
O'Leary,
Thompso
nd Insect
Rand's,
Repellent
De Pree


Chemical
Jack -
In J. E..
Spray:
Inc .---


S


Co., Inc ....
icticide Co-..
Co ----.- ...
Co-......
Co ..... ..
* -m mm m aa mmm m mm -
--- ------


Do -m -m -m mb -m u


Kilgerm
Midwestern Soap Co-----.-
Kills All Insect Spray
Excello Specialty Co-----.........
Folman, Hyman--...........
Welfeld, Morris...-------
Koton-Tox:
O'Leary Chemical Co...---.
O'Leary, Jack ........--- -
Thompson, J. E-..-.---.-..
Kovam:
Kovam Co- ----------------
LarkSpur lotion:
Jardel Laboratories Co----....-
Boss, J. M ---.--------------


J. No.
1637
1644
1644
1645
1644
1639
1649
1652
1652
1652
1651
1638
1655
1642
1642
1642
1652
1652
1652
1648
1641
1641


Lovinger's Odorless Disinfectant: N
Lovinger Disinfectant Co--....
Lovinger, Lee ......-------
Nico:
Garden Hose Insecticide Co-_
Nicostick:
Garden Hose Insecticide Co...
Nourse Gall Remedy:
Nourse Oil Co .- -----..
Peerlese Disinfectant:


Peerless C
Perkins, J.
Pur-A-Chblor:


Recos
Ress
Ritz


Speed


chemical


Co ----.


W --------- -


Tumbler, J. A., Laboratories.
Rechlor:
Tumbler, J. A., Laboratories.
Chlor:
Tumbler, J. A., Laboratories
Beer Coil Cleaning Compound
Ritz Chemical Co. of Ne
Jersey --.---.-.------.-----
Disinfectant:


. -
. -
. -
- -
- -
w
*-


Speed Chemical Co., Inc.....---
Sulfostick:
Garden Hose Insecticide Co--


Sulpho:
Garden Hose Insecticide Co--_
TroJan Vapor Wax:
Trojan Products & Manufac-


Zorex


turning
Crystals:


Co-----


- -


Moth Killer:
Zoro Co .....- ---------
Zoro Moth Balls:
Naphthalene Cakes:
Para Cakes:
Zoro Co---------- ---------.


. J. No.
1646
1646
1644
1644
1636
1643
1643
1653
1653
1653

1654
1640
1644
1644

1650

1647


1647




M:t.
------- -


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
II I I IlliII I I l 11 11ll 111 1 IIl
3 1262 08582 4943


II El I I