Notices of judgment under the insecticide act

77,52'


N. J., I. F.16661690


Issued October 1939


"United


States


Department


Agriculture


;
.1:1,.
* .1:1!')
1..j=...


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


ICES


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]


I..,
4.4 jq
*n.
H "'11


1006-1690


the Acting Secretary


of Agriculture,


Washington, D. C., July 29,


1939]


branding
oprietary


of Cre-O-Tol. U. S. v. Clarence E. WVorthen (American
Syndicate and American Drug Sales Co.). Plea of guilty.


*,".. Sentence suspended and defendant plai
j: (I. &F. No. 2040. Sample No. 54778-C.)
/..labeling of this product bore false and mis
.* effectiveness as a disinfectant and also fa
rt ingredient water.
O*fIay 3, 1938, the United States attorney for
Iti upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul
|xbnmation against Clarence E. Worthen, tri


Dr


I-


ced on probation for 1 year.
leading representations regard-
iled to indicate the presence of


the
ture,
ustee


District of Massachu
filed in the district
in a declaration of


setts,
court
trust


. nAmeritan Proprietary Syndicate and trading as the American Drug
L. at Malden, Mass., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about
9, 1937, from the State of Massachusetts into the State of Maine of a
Ly of Cre-0-Tol, which was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning
.risecticide Act of 1910.
:article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "As a
dtant Waste Pipes, Garbage Can, Kitchen-Sink and Tubs Teaspoonful
pa of water Scrubbing and Cleansing, Sprinkling Cellar. Tablespoonful
Sof water. In the Sick Room. Teaspoonful to a quart of water. Wash
|, vessels, linen, floors, and woodwork," borne on the bottle label, were
d misleading and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled
.. deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they represented that the
Vould disinfect waste pipes, could be relied upon to disinfect the cellar
S as directed, and would be an effective disinfectant for garbage cans,
$l nks and tubs, for the sickroom, on clothing, vessels, linens, floors.
diiTwork, when used at the dilutions recommended; whereas it would
effective for the said purposes when used as directed at the dilutions
Itgerded.
rt'le was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially
Iit substance, namely, water, which substance does not prevent, destroy,
ior mitigate insects or fungi (bacteria) and the name and percentage
H the said inert substance were not stated plainly and correctly on the
*arxed to the bottle containing the article; nor in lieu thereof were the
nd percentage amount of each substance or ingredient of the article






424


INSECTICIDE


ACT


1667. Adulteration and misbranding of De Luxe De-Chlo
De Luxe De-Chlor. Default decree of condemn
(I. & F. No. 2115. Sample No. 34748-D.)


[N.JI. .

r. IU. S. v. 132 Can f
ation and destruction.


This product contained smaller proportions of calcium hypoc
available chlorine and a larger proportion of inert ingredients than
the label. Its labeling also bore false and misleading claims regard
infectant properties.
On February 23, 1939, the United States attorney for the District o
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the di
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 132 cans of De Luxe


Baltimore, Md.; alleging that
merce on or about February 4,


Mich.;
ticide
The


the article had been shipped in int
1939, by the De Luxe Products Co. f


(2
1*


hlorite an
declared
lig its

f Maryland,
district court
De-Chlor at
statee cornm-
om Detroit,


and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the I]
Act of 1910.
article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity


below the professed standard and quality under which it was
labeled "Active Ingredients Alkaline Sodium Phosphate 46%
chlorite 18% Inert Ingredients 36% (Available C
whereas it contained less than 18 percent of calcium hypochic


percent of available chlorine, and more than 36 per
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that
were false and misleading and by reason of the said
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser. It was


cent of i
the afor
statement
alleged t


nsec-

fell


sold since it was
Calcium yp
hlorine 6.0%)"
rite, less than 6
nert ingredients.
said statements
ts it was labeled
o be misbranded


further in that the following statements in the labeling were false and mis-
leading and by reason of the said statements it was labeled so as to deceive
and mislead the purchaser since they represented that it was an effective dis-
infectant in the dilutions specified and that solutions prepared as directed con-
tained 200 parts per million or 100 parts per million of available chlorine;
whereas it was not an effective disinfectant in the dilutions specified and solu-
tions prepared as directed would not contain 200 parts per million or 100 parts
per million of available chlorine: "Process 1:-For disinfecting glassware,
dishes, silverware, etc., in a final rinse. By this process we recommend this
product as a germicidal rinse. First dissolve % ounce of this powder to each
gallon of water used. Always use a clean receptacle. This solution will pro-
vide available chlorine in a strength of 200 parts per million (200 p.p.m.).
Wash utensils in a proper manner then immerse them in the solution above for
a minimum of two minutes 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 dissolved 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 are left clear and sparkling. Some
health inspection. Consult your inspector or local health depart
recommend only 100 p.p.m. of available chlorine for disinfecting,
of this material need be used per gallon of water. Different 1
different regulations as to the amount of available chlorine they
disinfecting solution and as to the length of time they require


should be immersed; consult your local health depart
regulations."


tmei


localities
ment; iJ
only .
ocalities
require
that an
ft for


1 have
f they
ounce
have
in the
articles
these






1666-1690]


NOTICES .OF JUIDGME3NT


425


lime at Little Rock, A
state commerce on or
Co. from Toledo, Ohio
tion of the Insecticide


Adulter
below the
can label
Chlorine I
less than


rk.; al
about
; and
Act of


leging that
September
charging
1910.


the article had
4, 1937, by the
adulteration and


action was alleged in that the strength
professed standard and quality under ,
bore the statement, "Active Ingredient,
nert Ingredients, Not More Than 76%";
24 percent of available chlorine and ine


and puri
vhich it
Not Less
whereas
rt ingred


been shipped in inter-
Sinclair Manufacturing
misbranding in viola-


ty of the article
was sold in that
than 24% Avail
the article conta
clients in excess o


percent.
Misbranding was alleg
than 24% Available Chio
the can label, were false
the article was labeled
contained less than 24 F


ed in
rine
and
so a
erce]


that the statements, "Active
Inert Ingredients, Not More T
misleading and by reason of
s to deceive and mislead the
at of available chlorine and


Ingredient
ian 76%,"
the said s
purchaser
nert ingr(


, Not less
borne ou
statements
, since it
'dients in


excess of 76 percent.
On April 5, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was
entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

1669. Misbranding of Pine Disinfectant and Coal Tar Disinfectant. U. S. v.
15 Gallon Cans of Royalite Pine Disinfectant and 19 Gallon Cans of
Royalite Coal Tar Disinfectant. Default decree of condemnation and
destruction. Product delHvered to charitable institutions. (I. & F. No.
2116. Sample Nos. 59395-D, 59399-D.)


The labeling of the
regarding its disinfec
false and misleading
germicidal properties
the quantity or propo


Pine Disinfect nt
tant properties an
representations re
. Neither produce
rtion of the inert


bore false
d that of
garding it
t bore on
ingredient


and misleading representations
the Coal Tar Disinfectant bore
s disinfectant, deodorizing, and


its label a
present.


statement


showing


On February 27, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of AgriCulture, filed in the dis-
trict court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 15 gallon cans of Royalite
Pine Disinfectant and 19 gallon cans of Royalite Coal Tar Disinfectant at Bronx,


N. Y.:1 alleging that the articles had
about February 4, 1939, by the Royal
N. J.; and charging misbranding in v
The Pine Disinfectant was alleged
"Disinfectant Use diluted
the usual proportion for scrubbing a
borne'on the can label, were false and


been shipped in interstate commerce on or
Soap Manufacturing Co. from Jersey City,
violationn of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
to be misbranded in that the statements,
in water. Two cups to a pail of water is


nd cleaning,
misleading a


ments the article was labeled so as to deceive
they represented that it was an effective disi
whereas it was not an effective disinfectant in
The Coal Tar Disinfectant was alleged to


ments, "Disinfects
soapy solution that
label, were false and
was labeled so as d
that it would destroy


* A cup full i
thoroughly destroys
misleading and by r
receive and mislead
Small odors, would kill


(I
U


e and
nfecta
the d
be m


isinfecti
d by rea
mislead
nt in th


ii
U


n a pail of
odors-kills
eason of the
the purcha
1 all germs,


ng and deodorizing,"
ison of the said state-
Sthe purchaser since
e dilutions specified;


utions specified.
branded in that the state-
water makes a milky white
germs," borne on the can
Said statements the article
ser since they represented
and that it was an effective


disinfectant
would not I
specified.
Misbrand
tially of an


L in
kill


the dilution specified; whereas it would not destroy all odors,
all germs, and was not an effective disinfectant in the dilutions


ing of both products was alleged further in that they consisted par-
inert substance, namely. water, which does not prevent. destroy. renel.




1
426 INSECTICIDE

1670T. Misbranding of Silver Germicide. U.
Chemical Co.). Plea of guilty. Fa
TN 14AaK6 5 D


ACT


.S. v. Daniel Joseph Keel
ine, $10. (I. & F. No. 207(


(N.J. 1.7.

S


with a clean fragrant atmosphere. It destroys after-cooking kitchen odors, and
eliminates the odor of stale tobacco smoke," "An effective antiseptic wherejp,
there is sickness. Spray directly into the sick room," "Aid Protection against.
Infection," and "For superficial cuts, minor wounds, and bites of non-venomous
insects, spray directly upon the infected surface," borne on the bottle label, were
false and misleading and by reason of said statements the article was Ia
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser since they represented that it con-
tained silver; that it would destroy odors instantly, would cause unpleasant
odors to disappear, would destroy after-cooking kitchen odors, would eliminate
the odor of stale tobacco smoke, and would create a clean and refreshtg
atmosphere; that it would be an effective antiseptic when sprayed in the sick
room; that it would protect against infection, and would constitute an effective
treatment for infected cuts, wounds, and bites of nonvenomous insects; whereas
it did not contain silver and would not be effective for the purposes claimed'"
Misbranding was alleged further in that the article consisted partially of an
inert substance, namely, water, which substance does not prevent, destroy, repel,
or mitigate fungi (bacteria) and the name and percentage amount of such 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 ingrediedC
of the article having fungicidal properties, and the total percentage of the said
inert substance stated plainly and correctly on the label.


On February 21, 1939, the defendant entered a plea of guilty
imposed a fine of $10.


the court


HARaY L. BlOWN, Acting Secretary of Agricult
1671. Adulteration and misbranding of Leadzine. U. S. v. Niagara Sprayer
Chemical Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $150. (I. & F. No. 2104.
Sample Nos. 10367-D, 10378-D, 29002-D.)
This product contained a smaller proportion of the active ingredient lead
arsenate, and a larger proportion of the inert ingredients than declared. Two
of the three shipments contained a smaller proportion of arsenic, expressed as
metallic, than that declared on the label. --
On March 15, 1939, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
Florida, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against the Niagara Sprayer & Chemical Co., Inc., trading
at Jacksonville, Fla., alleging shipment by sail company on or about March 1
and 10, 1938, from the State of Florida into the State of Georgia of quantities


of "Leadzinc," which was an adulterated and misbranded
unris armon and loaId rqontmap within tho mnwniin rf thu


insecticide, other than
Tnmprtirida Art nf 10f10


o." V^l J- .) .... *M!<:^ ..
This product was misbranded because of false and misleading claims regarding
its effectiveness as a deodorant, antiseptic, and disinfectant and also because of
other misrepresentations in the labeling. It was misbranded further because of
failure to declare the inert ingredients present in the article.
On November 25, 1938, the United States attorney for the District of Massa-
chusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against Daniel Joseph Keefe, trading as Keefe Chemical
Co., Boston, Mass., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about April 29,
1938, from the State of Massachusetts into the State of New Hampshire of a
quantity of Silver Germicide, which was a misbranded fungicide within
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
Misbranding was alleged in that the statements, "Silver Germicide," "Destroys
offensive odors instantly and creates a clean, refreshing atmosphere. An instant
deodorant. A flick of the finger and unpleasant odors disappear and are replaced






1668-1690]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


427


It was alleged to be misbranded in that the aforesa
and misleading and by reason of these statements, it wa
and mislead the purchaser since it contained a smaller
ate and a larger proportion of inert ingredients than
of the three shipments contained a smaller proportion
metai than that declared.
On MKrch 27, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered on
and the court imposed a fine of $150.


1 statements were false
labeled so as to deceive
roportion of lead arsen-
o -represented, and two
)f arsenic, expressed as


behalf of


the defendant


HAnv L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


3


18672. Adulteration and misbranding of 1
mlabranding of High Grade Disih
Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine,
25948-D, 25949-D.)
This ease involved a product labeled
which was adulterated with mineral oil,


High Grade
nfectant. U.
$100. (1.

"High Grad
nd another 1


fectat,"' which bore on its labeling false and mislead
disinfectant properties. Neither product bore on its 1
quantity or.~proportion of the inert ingredients contain
On February 17, 1939, the United States attorney for
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of
district court an information against the Sun Klean
York, N. Y.; alleging shipment by said company on or a
the State of New York into the State of New Jersey of
named products, of which the former was adulterated
latter was misbranded in violation of the Insecticide A
The Pine Oil Disinfectant was alleged to be adulter
and purity fell below the professed standard or quality
namely, "Pine Oil Disinfectant," since mineral oil had


Pine Oil Disinfectant and
S. v. Sun Klean Chemieal
& F. No. 2092. Sample Nos.
le Pine Oil Disinfectant,"
labeled "High Grade Disin-


ling claims
label a sta
ned therein
the Southe
Agricultur
Chemical
bout June


regarding its
tement of the
I.
ern District of
e, filed in the
Co., Inc., New
24, 1938, from


f quantities of the above-
and misbranded and the
ct of 1910.
ated in that its strength
under which it was sold,
been substituted in part


for pine oil.
The Pine Oil Disinfectant was


alleged


statement "High Grade Pine Oil Disi
and misleading and by reason of sai
and mislead purchasers, since said
gradepine-oil disinfectant; whereas i
The High Grade Disinfectant was
lowing statements borne on the can


for tue. For Woodwork
parts water will aid in re
and Garbage Receptacles
to 100 parts of water.
germs in cesspools, vaults,
part water. Wash floor


and Wood
moving gre
.-Sprinkle
This soluti
etc. For H
s with this


to be misbranded further in


that the


nfectant," borne on the can label, was false
d statement it was labeled so as to deceive


statement represented that it
t was not a high-grade pine-oil
alleged to be misbranded in
labels, "Disinfectant *
Floors.-One part of Disinfe
ase and other stains. For Ou


thorough
on will
ouseclea
solution


was a high-
disinfectant.
that the fol-
* Directions
;ctant to 100
tdoor Closets


hly with one part of Disinfectant
aid in removing foul odors and
ning.-One part Disinfectant to 100
regularly. This product will aid


in removing grease and odors from sinks, refrigerators and kitchen utensils,
and aid In keeping them clean and wholesome. To Aid in Disinfecting Ships
and Oars.-ferryboats, emigrant vessels, stock cars, and yards, sprinkle and
wash floors, bunks and walls thoroughly with one part Disinfectant to 100
parts water. For Flushing sewers, stables, cellars, etc., and for sprinkling
streets during epidemics of contagious diseases, use one part Disinfectant to
100 parts water, as a preventive measure. Cuspidors, in public places or used
by those having infectious diseases, should contain a solution of Disinfectant,.
about one-half teaspoonful to each cuspidor, as a preventive measure. For
Houaehold Uses To Aid in Disinfecting Water Closets, flush the hopper each
day with one part Disinfectant to 100 parts water. Use freely in sinks, urinals,
drains., etc.," were false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements


m


v w





428


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N.J., I.F.


nor in lieu thereof did the labels bear a
amount of each and every ingredient
erties and the total percentage of inert
On March 2, 1939, a plea of guilty was
the court imposed a fine of $100.


* statement of the name and percenfige
of the articles having fungieidal prop-
ingredients present therein.
entered on behalf of the defendant ad1


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1673. Adulteration of lead arsenate. U. S. v. Niagara Sprayer & Chemical Co.,
Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $200. (I. & F. No. 2096. Sample Nos.
25925-]), 26323-D.)
This product contained a smaller proportion of lead arsenate and larger
portions of the inert ingredients and of arsenic in water-soluble fprm,
pressed as metallic arsenic, than those declared on the label.
On February 20, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western Districbf
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against the Niagara Sprayer & Chemical Co., Inc,
Middleport, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company on or about May 27
June 17, 1938, from the State of New York into the States of New Jersey and
Connecticut, respectively, of quantities of Niagara Suspenso Lead Arsenate
which was an adulterated insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Xt
of 1910.


The article was alleged to be adulterated in that
below the professed standard or quality under w
(both lots) "Lead Arsenate not less than 98%, Inert
2%," (one lot) "Arsenic as metallic in water soluble
(other lot) "Arsenic in Water Soluble Forms (e
over .50%."
On May 27, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered on b
the court imposed a fine of $200.


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting


1674. Adulteration and misbranding of sodium fluori


uets (
Sample


This product
represented to
inert ingredien
On January
Pennsylvania,


the district
tion trading
February 9
California <
branded ins
The arti4
fell below I


,o. Plea of
Nos. 18269-D,
; contained a
contain. Its
ts present in
23, 1939, the
acting upon


nolo contender. Fi
18270-D.)
smaller proportion of
labeling also failed
the article.
United States attorney


a report


mne
Sc
to


y i


Secreta


court an information against the Sterlin
; at Easton, Pa., alleging shipment by
and June 17, 1938, from the State of Pen
f quantities of sodium fluoride, which wi
ecticide within the meaning of the Insec
le was alleged to be adulterated in thi
he professed standard or quality under


its strength or purity fell
which it was sold, namely,
Ingredients not more than.
forms not more than .5%Z"
pressed as Metallic) pt

half of the de pendant

Secretary of Aoi"vtt
de. IT. S. v. Sterling Pr-
, $50. (I. & F. No. 2090.

)dium fluoride than it
bear a declaration of tile

for the Eastern Distriet
ry of Agriculture, filed in
g Products Co., a corpora-
said company on or about
nsylvania into the State tk
as an adulterated and mis-
ticide Act of 1010.
at its strength and puriy
which it was sold, namely,


(one lot) "Sodium Fluoride Light 95%," (other lot) "Sodium Fli-
oride Light 95/97%."
Both lots were alleged to be misbranded in that the article consisted par-
tially of inert substances, namely, substances other than sodium fluoride, which
said substances do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and it did
not have the name and percentage amount of each of the said inert ingredients
plainly and correctly stated on the label; nor in lieu thereof did the label
bear a statement of the name and percentage amount of each ingredient of the
a.t4 taa wn., S na aaa a a L4 ^- 1 A L .4a1 --.. -. ^-






1666-1690]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


429


1675. Adulteration and misbranding of Sunny Clean Household Bleach
Cleaner. U. S. v. 100 Bottles of Sunny Clean Household Bleach
Cleaner. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (I.
No. 2102. Sample No. 50224-D.)


and
and
& F.


This product contained a
proportion of sodium hypoc
misleading representations
On January 25, 1939, the
Alabama, acting upon a rep
trict court a libel praying


larger pr
hlorite th
regarding
United S


0
s


Clean Household Bleach andc
article had been shipped in i
October 19, 1938, by the LyoL
ing adulteration and minsbrai
The article was alleged to
below the professed standard
labeled "Inert Ingredients 95
it contained less than 5 per
than 95 percent of inert ingr
It was alleged to be misbi
95% Sodium Hypochlorite
Deodorizing-Porcelain, Tile,
Use two tablespoonfuls of Sui
and dry," borne on the label,


said statements it w
they represented tha
and not less than 5 p
porcelain, tile, marbl
whereas it contained


s lab
it co
recent
, euna
more


r
e
I.
K]
1
13
I.
C


I
1
(
.)


t by t
izure
Clear


terstat
Produce
ding in1
he adul
and qu
o Sodil


cent of
edients.
randed
5% by
Marble


portion of


inert ingredients and a smaller


an declared. Its
Sits effectiveness
states attorney for
e Secretary of Ag
rnd condemnation
hr at Birmingham
e commerce on or
ns C(o., Inc., from
violation of the
terated in that its
ality under which
um Hypochlorite *


sodium


1 that I
eight"
Enamel


mny Clean to eacL


were


false


: so as to
ined not
sodium h
,. glasswa
rn 95 per


cent of sodium hypochlorite by weight
disinfect porcelain, tile, marble, enam
On March 20, 1939, no claimant ha'


was entered and


tlh' product


was


Sdeceiv
more th


label also bore fal
as a disinfectant.
the Northern Dist
culture, filed iu tl
of 100 bottles of
, Ala.; alleging th
about Sentember


Atlanta.,
Insectici
strength
it was s
% bv WV


hypochlorite


he statements, ]
and "Cleansing,
and Glassware,
quart of lukewa
misleading and
e and mislead th
an 95 percent of


ypochlorite by weight an
re and woodwork when
cent of inert ingredients
and when used as direc
'1, glassware, or woodwo
ing appeared, judgment,


ordered destroyed.


w


A&
Ga.; and charg-
de Act of 1910.
and purity fell
old since it was
eight"; whereas
eight and more


Inert


Ingredients


Disinfecting and
Woodwork, etc.-
a
rm water. Rinse
by reason of the
e purchaser since
inert ingredients


d woi
used
, less
ted, i
*k.
of cc


uld disinfect
as directed;
than 5 per-
t would not


ndemnation


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


1670. Adulteration and misbranding of Germalene Pine Disinfectant and De-
odorant. U. S. v. One 75-Gallon Drum of Germnaleue Pine Disinfectant
and Deodorant. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (I.
& F. No. 2112. Sample No. 62543-D.)
This product contained an inert ingredient, water, in excess of the amount


declared on the label. The labeling also bore false and misled
tions regarding its effectiveness as a disinfectant and deodora
On or about February 21, 1939, the United States attorney
District of Louisiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of
in the district court a libel Dpra.vying seizure and condemnation


drum of Germnalene
that the article had
7, 1938, by the Gern
adulteration and mi
The article was a
below the professed


labeled "Inert. Ma
not over 17%";
Dproportion of mo


It was
not more


allege
than


Pine Dis
been sh
nlene Cl
sbrnandin
alleged toc
standard


tter,
whe
re th
to libe
nper


Water
erons I
an 17
misbr
pcon-t.


infectant and
ipped in inters
chemical Co., In
g in violation
Sbe adulterate
d and quality
r, not more tha
it contained
percent.
anded in that
Tnort Matter


De
,ta
1C.,
of
?d
un
n
wa


odorant at
te commerce
From Hou
the Insecti
in that its
der which
17 per cent.
ter as the


ading representa-
nt.


Alexandria
e on or ab
ston, Tex.;
cide Act of
strength a
it was sold


* the Western
riculture, filed
one 75-gallon
, La.; alleging
out November
and charging
1910.
nd purity fell


I,


since it was


* Inert Matter
inert ingredient in a


the statements, "Iner
nat nvrr 17% *


t Matter,


* T


Water,


i)infpptnnt


ld
17


1


t


I


I





430


INSECTICIDE


ACT


p


cuspidors, and other places where the use of a reliable disinfectant and d
was desirable; whereas it contained water as the inert ingredient in a
tion of more than 17 percent, and when used as directed would not be
for the said purposes.
On May 2, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnat
entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
HARRY L. BBRQWN, Acting Secretary of Agrica


4. J., r. .

deodorant
propor-
effective
ion was


allure.


1677. Misbranding of Menderth. IT. S. v. Menderth, Inc. Plea of guilty.
Fine, $10. (I. & F. No. 2015. Sample No. 12315-C.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding
its effectiveness in the control of certain insects and plant diseases and failed to
declare the inert substances present in the article.
On November 19, 1937, the United States attorney for the District of Massachu-
setts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against Menderth, Inc., trading at Boston, Mass., alleging
shipment by said company on or about May 14, 1937, from the State of Maine into
the State of Massachusetts of a quantity of Menderth, which was a misbranded
insecticide and fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the statements, "Corn Borer
Control Directions for proper use of Menderth for growing sweet corn and coni-


trolling the ravages of the Corn Borer and Ear Worm. The most
results are obtained by placing Menderth directly under and near the
is perfectly safe, as Menderth does Not burn roots or foliage. The
use Menderth is to put a handful in each hill-mix a little with the so
seeds right in it-cover with soil and tamp down with a hoe. If plan
Menderth should be thrown in the furrow by hand; or put in with


satisfactory
seed. This
best way to
il--drop the
ted in rows,
the drill or


seed planter. When the stalks are about six inches tall, or after the second or
third leaf appears, dust the stalk with Menderth, so the material will lodge in
the joint between leaf and stalk. This is where the borer usually starts his work.
Repeat the dusting as above, as often as new leaves appear. When the stalk
tassels, dust it thoroughly with Menderth; and when the corn approaches ma-
turity and the silk appears, dust the silk also with Menderth to guard against
the ravages of the ear worm. If not checked, ear worms may cause more dam-
age than the borer," "Menderth is not an insecticide, but insects do not like it


and will not stay where they come in contact with it.


for dusting purposes," "Mr. 0.


C. Dexter wrote as follows


Use it freely


'Ilend


come the diseases that were destroying the perennials-and
garden, has given a vigor and quality we could not obtain with
in the circular shipped with the article were false and mislead
of the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive
chasers since they represented that it would be effective against t
corn-ear worm and would be effective to keep insects away when


he


lerth
the
it',"
and
d mi
corn


and often
has over-
vegetable
appearing
by reason
slead pur-
borer and


used as directed,


and would be effective to overcome the diseases of perennials and vegetables as
indicated therein; whereas it would not be effective against the corn borer or
corn-ear worm, would not keep insects away when used as directed, and would
not be effective to overcome the diseases of perennials and vegetables as indicated.
The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted completely
of inert substances or ingredients and the name and percentage amount of each
substance or ingredient present therein were not stated plainly and correctly on
the label; nor did the label bear a statement to the effect that the substances or
ingredients contained in the article were inert.
On March 28, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant
and the court imposed a fine of $10.





106G-1690 ]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


430


the State of India
Chaser which was
The information
statements, (label
scientific product,


and their
on the top
shipment)
larvae. *


na into the State of Illinois of quantities of Red Star Moth
alleged to be misbranded.
alleged that the article was misbranded in that the following
in earlier shipment) "Red Star Moth Chaser. This is a
the fumes of which are heavier than air and destroys moths


larvae Directions: Hang it in a bag among clothes or place
of clothes in cedar chest. Nothing better can be made" (label in later


"Red
* *


Star Moth
Directions


Chaser. A
Place the


fumigant for
contents in one


killing moths an
Sor more cloth ba


d their
gs and


hang them among the clothes," were false and misleading and by reason of said
statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in
that they represented that, when used as directed, it would (in the case of the
former), destroy moths and moth larvae under all conditions and (in the case of
the latter) be effective for killing moths under all conditions, whereas the article
would not be effective for the said purposes.


It was alleged
inert substance,
and percentage a
correctly on the
thereof were the
of the article hav


to be misbranded fur
namely, cedarwood ex
mount of the said ine
label affixed to each (
name and percentage
ing insecticidal proper


substance present stated
On November 5, 1935, t
was argued March 23, 19
E. Meyer filed a demurre
the court on the ground
Joseph E. Meyer and the
On February 10, 1939,
Meyer without opinion.


their in tha
elusive of c
rt substance
f the carto
amount of
ties and the


t it consisted par
cedarwood oil, an
were not stated
ns containing it;
each substance o
total percentage


plainly and correctly on the label.
he defendant Raymond B. Meyer filed
136, and overruled. On May 2, 1936,
r, which was argued on May 15, 1936
that the information did not state
case was dismissed as to the said de
the court dismissed the information


*tially of an
Ld the name
plainly and
nor in lieu
r ingredient
of the inert


a demurrer, which
defendant Joseph
, and sustained by
San offense as to
fendant.
as to Raymond B.


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1079. Misbranding of Staggs' One Dose Bot and Worm Capsules. U. S. v.
Cecil H. Staggs (C. H. Stages & Sons). Plea of nolo contender. Im-
position of sentence suspended and defendant placed on probation for
8 months. (I. & F. No. 2004. Sample No. 19882-C.)
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-


ing its effectiveness for the removal of bots from horses,
On March 1, 1938, the United States attorney for the


colts, and
District of


acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
an information against Cecil H. Staggs, trading as C. H. Staggs
neapolis, Minn., alleging shipment by said defendant on or abo
1937, from the State of Minnesota into the State of Wisconsin, of
Staggs' One Dose Bot and Worm Capsules which was a misbrand


within the
The arti
appearing


meaning of the Insecticide Act o
cle was alleged to be misbranded
in the labeling were false and mis


statements, it was labeled so as to deceive a
represented that when used as directed, it woi


bota from horses, colts, and
purposes when used as dire
Capsules Recommended for
Mules in about 30 Hours
pared under supervision of
sorbed by the parasites whi


Of Bots
OwnprA S


mules; whereas,
acted: (Can label)
Removal of Bots
* 'Staggs'
Registered Phar
ch kills them"; (


f 1910.
in that


mules.
Minnesota,
strict court
Sons, Min-
March 10,
quantity of


ed insecticide


following statements


leading and by reason of
nd mislead purchasers si
uld be effective for the re
it would not be effective
"'Staggs' One Dose Bot
* from Horses, C
One Dose Bot *


:macist. *
large circular) "


* Hundreds of Horses Being Treated for Bots


I


nvp fliindr~d~ nP


nfl


the said
nce they
moval of
for such
* *
.olts and
are pre-


The gas is ab-
Rid Your Horses
Horse


1IArR Thai rnqnlt-c nP thai traintmaint


i






432


INSECTICIDE ACT


IN. J., I.W.


24 years, the original onu dose sealed capsule treatment, ?
Be Controlled The treatment, especially if conducted on
is very profitable, the annoyance from the nose bet flies a
being greatly reduced (next summer) and the ill effect of t
indigestion) practically eliminated. Time To Treat Now-
(small circular) "Rid Your Horses of Bots The
the parasites which kills them."
The information charged that the article was also misbi
of the Food and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment I
under that act.
On February 13, 1939, the defendant entered a plea c
Sentence was deferred to April 10, 1939, on which date the
tence was suspended, and the defendant was placed on prol
of 8 months.


Nose Bot Flies Can
a community basis,
nd throat bot flies
he Bots (colic and
And Save Money";
gas is absorbed by
handed in violation
No. 30603 published
if nolo contender.
imposition of sen-
bation for a period


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1680. Adulteration and minsbranding of mercury oxycyanide tablets and Bar-
doxy Tablets (mercury oxycyanide tablets). U. S. v. C. R. Bard, line.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $150, (I. & F. No. 2094. Sample Nos. 26092-D,
76101-C0.)
This product was adulterated and misbranded because other substances had
been substituted in part for mercury oxycyanide, which it purported to be.
It was misbranded further because of false and misleading claims in the
labeling regarding its sterilizing properties, and because of failure to declare
the inert ingredients present.
On February 24, 1939, 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 C. R. Bard, Inc., New York, N. Y., alleging
shipment by said company on or about October 14, 1937, and August 10, 1938,
from the State of New York into the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey,
respectively, of quantities of mercury oxycyanide tablets which were adulter-
ated and misbranded.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that other substances, namely,
mercuric cyanide, sodium chloride, ammonium chloride, boric acid, and coloring
matter had been substituted in part for merry oxycyanide. ..
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, (both lots)
"Mercury Oxycyanide" and "For sterilizing surgical instruments. Immerse
instruments for 15 minutes min 1: 3000 solution (1 tablet to quart water). Espe-
cially prepared for the sterilization of catheters, bougies and systoscopes and
other lense instruments," and (one lot) "100 Tablets 0.316 Gm. Each Mercury
Oxycyanide," appearing in the labeling, 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 it consisted wholly of mercury oxy.-
cyanide and that it would sterilize instruments, and (in the case of one lot)
that it would be effective in the disinfection of instruments and that each tablet
contained not less than 0.316 gram of mercury oxycyanide; whereas it did not
consist wholly of mercury oxycyanide and would not sterilize instruments, and
in the said lot it would not be effective in the disinfection of instruments and


each tablet thereof contained less than 0.316 gram of mercury oxycyanide.
The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially
of inert substances, namely, substances other than mercuric oxycyanide and
mercuric cyanide, namely, sodium chloride, ammonium chloride, boric acid, and
coloring matter, which substances do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
fungi (bacteria), and it did not have the name and percentage amount of each









I.
I
I:

I;.
I.
Hi'.
F
it
ii;
I:
I.:...
LA
I.
I.

"I.


p.
I


ii


JUDGMENT


433


On or about March 24, 1939, the United Sta
District of Florida, acting upon a report by the
in the district court a libel praying seizure and
drum of Weinkle's Pine Cleanser at Fernandina,
had been shipped in interstate commerce on or


Weinkle Co. from
Insecticide Act of
The article was
inert substance, n
repel, or mitigate


such inert
nor in lieu
ingredient
total perce
the label.
one-half to
label, was


labeled so
article whe
directed w(
On April
was entered(


substan
thereof
of the
ntage oJ
It was


I


Atlant:
1910.
alleged
amely,
fungi
ce was
were t
article
Sthe in
alleged


Ga.;


tes attorney f
Secretary of
condemnation
Fla.; alleging
bout January


and charging misbranding in


or
Agr
of
th
20,


the Southern
culture, filed
one 33-gallon
at the article
, 1939, by the


violation


of the


to be misbranded in that it consisted partially of an
water, which substance does not prevent, destroy,
(bacteria), and the name and percentage amount of
not stated plainly and correctly on the drum label;
he name and percentage amount of each substance or
having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties and the
lert substance present stated plainly and correctly on


to be misbranded furl


one pint to three gallons of water.
false and misleading and by reason
is to deceive and mislead the purchase
n used as directed would disinfect; w
uld not disinfect.
3, 1939, no claimant having appear
i and the product was ordered destroy,


Lher in that
Disinfects,"
of the sai
;er since it
hereas the


red,
yed.


judgment


the statement "1
borne on the dr
d statement, it w
represented that
article when used


Jse
urn
vas
the
as


of condemnation


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
1682. MisbrandLng of Worth Insect Spray and Worth Stock and Cattle Spray.
U. S. v. Milton L. Amshel (Exsereo Prod neucts Co.). Plea of nolo con-
tendere. Fine, $40 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2107. Sample Nos. 29592-D,
29593-D.)
These products were both misbranded because of false and misleading repre-
sentations in the labeling regarding their effectiveness in the control of certain
insects. The Stock and Cattle Spray was misbranded further because the
labeling falsely represented that the article would not contaminate milk, and
because the cans contained less than the volume declared.
On March 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against Milton L. Amshel trading as the Exserco
Products Co., at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendant on or
aboUt August 1 and 6, 1938, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of
Ohio of quantities of Worth Insect Spray and Worth Stock and Cattle Spray,
which were misbranded insecticides within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
of 1910.
The Insect Spray was alleged to be misbranded in that the following state-
ments borne on the can label. "Worth Insect Spray Kills Flies *
Flies Spray room with Worth Insect Spray, spraying upwards in all
directions. Keep doors and windows closed for 10 minutes. Moth and Silver-
flsh: Thoroughly brush the garment, then spray Worth Insect Spray everywhere
under seams, collars, etc. Worth Insect Spray will not stain or damage furs,
cloth, silks, rugs, or fabric of any kind. This Insecticide will kill all larvae
and eggs with which it comes in thorough contact," were false and misleading
and by reason of the said statements was labeled so as to deceive and mislead
th- purchaser since they represented that when used as directed, it would kill
flies and would control moth and silverfish; whereas when used as directed
i would not kill flies and would not control moth and silverfish.
Te Stock and Cattle Spray was alleged to be misbranded in that the follow-


ing statements borne on the
(flutla Rranr in theo mlkimnt


can label,
rnnnm tnpQ


"Rigid tests show that the us
nnt pnntnminnnat ftho nmHl" "


se of Worth
Thc anrav(r


566-16901


NOTICES





434


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J.4 F.


milking utensils
varieties of fli
stained 1 gallon
allowed to corn
it would not be
or annoy cattle,
On May 18,
court imposed a


s; that the article would be an effective repellent agains11
es that attack and annoy cattle and that the cans each i-
; whereas it would contaminate the milk if the spray w e
e in contact with the teats of cows and the milking utes
an effective repellent against all varieties of flies which a
and the quantity of contents of the cans was less than 1 gal
1939, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contender andI
fine of $40 and costs.
HARRY I. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agrio


1683. Misbranding of Verdo Plant Insecticide. U. S. v. Cenol Co. Plea of
guilty. Fine, $300 and costs. (I. & F. No. 2105. Sample No, 21626-
The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations rega -
ing its effectiveness in the control of certain insects.
On March 16, 1939, the United States attorney for the Northern District
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dist
court an information against the Cenol Co., a corporation, Chicago, Ill., all
shipment by said company on or about February 12, 1938, from the State
Illinois into the State of Indiana of a quantity of Verdo Plant Insecticide, w
was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910j
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the following statements bore
on the bottles and cartons, "Verdo Plant Insecticide Por **
thrips use of dilution of 1-800. For leaf tiers, *
use a dilution of 1-300. For Japanese beetles use a dilution
of 1-200," were false and misleading and by reason of the said statements, it was
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser since they represented that
when used as directed, it would control thrips, leaf tiers, and Japanese beetles;
whereas when used as directed it would not control thrips, leaf tiers, and
Japanese beetles.
On May 22, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defenant
the court imposed a fine of $300 and costs.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of AgffrcNdtr
1684. Misbranding of Wilaon'a Chlorine Crystals. U. S. v. Willson Mouu
Laboratories, Inc. Plea of nolo contender. Fine, $10. (I. & F. No.
2026. Sample No. 84163-C.)
This product was labeled to indicate that it was a compound of chlorine crystals
and possessed the properties of chlorine; whereas it consisted of paradihl
benzene. Its labeling bore false and misleading representations regarding
its effectiveness in the control of moths and falsely represented that it was
nonpoisonous.
On February 5, 1938, the United States attorney for the Western District
Wisconsin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in te
district court an information against the Willson Monarch Laboratories, Inc.,
Edgerton, Wis., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about April 2, 1937,
from the State of Wisconsin into the State of Illinois of a quantity of Willson's
Chlorine Crystals, which were a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of tih
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "Wilig.
Chlorine Crystals" was false and misleading in that it implied that the article
was a compound of chlorine crystals and possessed the properties of ri
whereas it was neither so compounded nor did it contain such properties. It was
alleged to be misbranded further in that the statements, "To eliminate the
jectionable odors of cooked or burnt food, stale tobacco smoke, etc, simp
....'.q af .ry a ^ / a. fl C .. U






1666-16901


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


435


On February 10, 1939, a plea of nolo contender was entered on behalf of the
-defendant and the court imposed a fine of $10 on each count.
HARnY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1685. Misbranding of Bareolene. U. S. v. 420
decree of condemnation. Product ord
r relief organization. (I. & F. No. 2121. S
The labeling of this product bore false and mi
Ing its effectiveness as a germicide and deodora
leading representations that the article was noi
-declaration of the inert ingredients present.
On March 20, 1939, the United States attorney
.sylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary


trict court a libel praying seizure and
-at Scranton, Pa.; alleging that the ai
merce on or about February 14 and 27
N. Y.; and charging misbranding in v
The article was alleged to be misbra


substances, namely, water
or mitigate fungi bacteriai
substance or ingredient so
on the bottle label; nor
.amount of each substance
tericidal) properties, and


Bo
ered
;amL
Lslea
Lrt.
npoi


titles of Bareolene. Default
I delivered to charitable or
)le No. 60041-D.)
ding representations regard-
It also bore false and mis-
sonous, and failed to bear a


for the Middle District of Penn-
of Agriculture, filed in the dis-


condemnation
article had been
, 1939, by Barcc
violation of the
ended in that it


mineral oil, which do
nd the name and the


of 420 bottles of Barcolene
shipped in interstate com-
o Products from New York,
Insecticide Act of 1910.
consisted partially of inert
not prevent, destroy, repel,
percentage amount of each


present therein were not stated plainly and correctly


in lieu thereof were the na
or ingredient of the article
the total percentage of the i


dients so present therein stated plainly and correctly on
alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement
Purpose Cleaner Cleaner, Water Softener, Germicide,


me and the percentage
having fungicidal (bac-
nert substance or ingre-
the bottle label. It was
s, "Harmless," and "All
Deodorant---All in One


In your cleaning Eliminates the use of any and all other types of: Soaps, Wash-
ing Powders, Scouring Powders, Disinfectants, Etc. Directions: For
Dishes, silverware, pots, etc. I, teaspoonful in basin of water. For mopping,
scrubbing, etc: One Tablespoonful to 2 gallons of water. Dose can be increased
as desired depending upon amount and hardness of dirt to be removed. For
washing painted walls and woodwork: One teaspoonful to 1 gallon water. For
marble, walls, granite, stone, concrete, terraces One tablespoonful to 2
gallons of water. For washing clothes: Two tablespoonfuls to 5 gallons water,
soak clothes for one hour in hot water. Souse a few times, wring out, rinse 2
or 3 times in clean water. Add bluing in usual way. No boiling, required
* For rugs and upholstery: A teaspoonful to 1 gallon water. Use
sponge or brush, stroke surface with nap. Then repeat with clean water. Then
gather up water by wiping with sponge. Allow to dry. Same for upholstery
For mechanics' hands: Moisten hands with water, using enough cleaner to go on
tip of finger, rub hands in usual way, then rinse with clean water. Any amount
can be used as material is entirely harmless, but its action is so effective that
only a small amount is necessary," borne on the bottle label, were false and


misleading and by reason of the said statements
and mislead the purchaser since they represented
was harmless and nonpoisonous, that it would
things and was an effective disinfectant in the
was not harmless and nonpoisonous, it would
things, and it was not an effective disinfectant
used as directed.


it was labeled so as to deceive
that when used as directed, it
disinfect the said places and
dilution specified; whereas it
not disinfect said places and
in the dilution specified when


On May 5, 1939, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation was
entered and the product was ordered delivered to a charitable or relief organiza-
tion or destroyed.
T"A nv T. Tlunri'r'e A dn a,,n .*,ewzf'nr.it." n A r ,nPfro


b






436


INSECTICIDE


ACT


manufacturing Co., alleging shipment by said defendant on or about Febrfry
, 1938, from the State of Virginia into the State of Maryland, of a 1
Getem Fly Spray which was misbranded, and of a quantity of Getem
nson which was adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of
secticide Act of 1910.
The fly spray was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement 'It is n
dsonous," borne on the label attached to the drum containing it, wag false ad
isleading, and by reason of the said statement it was labeled so as to deceive
d mislead the purchaser since it was poisonous.
The ant poison was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and puriy


fell
the
sent
less
but
tion
that


bel
state
ed
tha
did
of
it


)w the professed standard and quality under which
tement on the bottle label, "Active Ingredients: Ar
that it contained arsenic as the active ingredient in
n 2.25 percent; whereas it did not contain arsenic as
contain sodium arsenite as the active ingredient and
less than 2.25 percent. The ant poison was alleged
contained arsenic, and the amount of arsenic in


expressed as percentum of metallic arsenic,
alleged to be misbranded further in that


was not stated
the statements,


(


it was sold, inm
senic 2.25%," r,10
a proportion Ct*
the active ingr
arsenic in a propor-
to be minsbranded ln
water-solible form,
on the label It p
"Getem Ant PoJsb


This poison is carried to the nest and gets the ants at their source Direction
Drop 10 or 15 drops around where you see the ants working or saturate s&
pieces of bread or cake, leaving some around. Ants will disappear in 48 hours
borne on the bottle label, were false and misleading, and by reason of the a
statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the puareht
in that they represented that it would be effective against all species of an
infesting houses; whereas it would not be effective against all species of Sat
infesting houses. The ant poison was alleged to be misbranded further in that
it consisted partially of inert substances or ingredients, which substatdes do nt
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the name and percentage atoa
of each inert substance so present were not stated plainly and correety on tk
bottle label; nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount of ea
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 said label.
On May 2, 1939, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant ant
the court imposed a fine of $5.
HAmrY LI. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agrlswr
1687. Adulteration and misbranding of Del-Tox. U. S. v. 400 Bottles .t
Tox. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. Nq
2111, 2117. Sample Nos. 34589-D, 34600-D, 35021-D, 35025-D.)
This product contained a smaller proportion of sodium hypochloriAte, theac
ingredient, and a larger proportion of the inert ingredients than diared,
labeling also bore false and misleading representations regarding its efectiven
as a sterilizer.
On January 31 and March 14, 1939, the United States attorney for the Eastern
District of Virginia, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture,
in the district court libels praying seizure and condemnation of 400 boles
Del-Tox at Suffolk, Va., and 150 bottles of Del-Tox at Newport News, ,
alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or ab
November 12, 1938, and January 18, 1939, by Del-Tox Chemical Co. fron
more, Md.; and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell


M,
25
of
Po
In

po
mi
an






31606-16901]

On May 23, 1939,
were entered and the


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


no claimant having appeared, j
product was ordered destroyed.


437


udgments


of condemnation


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


1688. Misbrandin
Plea of
The labeling ol
ing its strength a
inert ingredients
On December


of New
the distr
a alleging
of New
Tabs wh
Act of 1
York, N.
It was
Jiar labe


York, a
'ict court
shipment
York in
ich wer
910. T
Y."
alleged
Is. "To


Agriculture.


g of Herpicide Disinfectant Tabs. U. S. v. Ar. Winarick. Inc.
guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 2080. Sample No. 31308-D.)
f this product bore false and misleading repl)resentations regard-
nd its disinfectant properties, and it also failed to declare the
present.
8, 1938, the United States attorney for the Southern District


acting upon


"t
*t

e
h


a report


Secretary


San information against Ar. W
t by said company on or about
to the State of Ohio of a quaL
a misbranded fungicide within
te article was labeled in part:

to be misbranded in that the fol


make


Disinfectant Tab in 1 pinut


show that a
Acid) when
used in ace
complies in
in a disinfe
For Genera
brushes, etc


1:5000 s(
tested on
ordance t
a practice
cting solu
I Disinfec


and by reason 4
the purchaser
would be equiv
phenol would


[ISO
oft
in
ale
be


surgica
he said


1


general disinfectin
and for surgical
product would no


conditions
effective d
beauty sho
The arti
of inert s
which do
name and
stated plai
and percent
fungicidal
therein sta


that
nt to
effect
g pi
and
t be


the Standard


of water or S
on is equivaler
organism Ebe
directions me4
y with laws re
of proper gern
Purposes, su(
1 and dental i
statements, it
ey represented
i percent soluti
, and that it
ses such as bar
ital instrument
uinvalent to a
would be effect
General disin


rpo,
den
eqi


where phenol
isinfectant for


5000


so


Tabs in
it to a 5
rthella t


of Agriculture,


inarick, Inc., N'
March 10, 1938,


w York, N. Y
from the Star


itity of Herpicide Disinfectant
the meaning of the Insecticidh
"The Herpicide Co. Inc. New


lowin
lution
1 gal
% sol
yphi.


ets general
quiring tools
micidal stren
Ih as Barbel
instruments "
was labeled s
that a 1:5
on of phenol


would be an
ber and beaut
ts; whereas a


5-percent


*tive, and
fectine o


p tools, brushes, etc., and for su
cle was alleged to be misbranded
ubstances or ingredients (subst


not
perch
nly
itag(
pro'
ted


t-. a


rgical
further
dances


solu
the
urpo
and
r in
othe


g statements bo
, dissolve one
ion. Bacteriolc
ution of phenol
This solution


auita ry
. brushes


req u i
. etc..


rei:
to


rne on the
Herpicide
igical tests
(Carbolic
made and
ments. amid
be dipped


, before using. *
ud Beauty Shop Tools.
re false and misleading


s to
solid
der
effect
shop


tio
art
ses
den
tha
r t


prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi
entage amount of such inert substances prese
and correctly on the jar label; nor in lieu the
amount of each substance or ingredient of
parties, and the total percentage of the inert
plainly and correctly on the label.


On January 20, 1939, a plea of guilty having been
defendant, the court imposed a fine of $50.


entered


deceive
ution of
all condi
ive disi
Stools, t


and
thl
itioi
nfec
ui.s


:5000 solution <
Sof phenol und
icle would not
such as barbe
tal instruments.
t it consisted pa
ban mercuric i<


(bacteria) an


nt therein w
reof were th
the article
substances

d on behalf


mislead
e article
is where
tant for
hes, etc..


rtiall


odide)
d the


ere not
e name
ha' ring
present

of the


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agricu Ftu re.


Adulteration and mniisbranding of Grasselli
64 Cases of GrasselHi Calcium Arsenate.
nation. Product released under bond.
37726-D.)


Calelium Arsenate. U. S. v.
Consent decree of condem-
I. & F. No. 2123. Sample NA.


This product was intended for use on vegetation but contained a substance, or
substances, which would be injurious to vegetation when used as directed. It


1689.


t


,1


*


I


S






438 INSECTICIDE ACT [N.J.,I.

Misbranding was alleged in that the statement "Water Soluble Arsenic as
Metallic Arsenic not over 0.45%," borne on the labels of the bags containing the
article, were false and misleading and by reason of the said statement, the
article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that it repre-
sented that the article contained no more than 0.45 percent of water-soluble
arsenic, expressed as metallic soluble arsenic; whereas it contained more than
0.45 percent of water-soluble arsenic, expressed as metallic soluble arsenic.
On June 7, 1939, E. I. Dupont de Nemours & .Co., Wilmington, Del., claimant,
having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation was
entered and the product was ordered released under bond conditioned that it
be reworked into a legal insecticide, and used in poison baits for insects or for
other purposes authorized by the Insecticide Act of 1910.


HAmaY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture,.


1690. Misbranding of San-0-Sen Antiseptie Spray. U. S. v. Palustreptie, Ine.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs. (I. & P. No. 2058. Sample No.
8747-D.)
The labels of this product bore false and misleading representations regarding
its effectiveness as an antiseptic, and failed to indicate the inert ingredient
present in the article.
On August 31, 1938, the United States attorney for the Northern District
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against Palustrepine, Inc., Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment
by the said company within the period from on or about September 17 to on
about November 2, 1937, from the State of Illinois into the State ofg
of a quantity of San-O-Sen Antiseptic Spray which was a misbrand ede
cide and fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910,
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement i -
Spray is an effective antiseptic for all household purposes," borne on the
label, was false and misleading and by reason of the said statement, it w$
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that the said statement
represented that it would be an effective antiseptic for all household uses
whereas when used as directed, it would not be an effective antiseptic or
household uses. Further misbranding was alleged in that the article hoisted
partially of an inert substance, namely, water, which substance does not-
vent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi, and the name and pereta4
amount of such inert substance were not plainly and correctly stated: ont
bottle labels; nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount of each
substance or ingredient having insecticidal or fungicidal properties, ad
total percentage of the inert substances present in the article stated plainly
and correctly on the label.
The information charged that the article was also misbranded in violation o
the Food and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 80640 publish
under that act.
On April 11, 1939, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of
defendant, the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs for violation of both acts.


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of AgrLOIe r&


4















INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1666-1690


Barcolene:
Barco Products-..-.- .--..-


Bardoxy Tablets. See
cyanide tablets.
Calcium arsenate:
Du Point de Nemr
Chlorinated lime:
Sinclair Manufact
Cre-O-Tol:


Mercury


ours,


N. J. No.


oxy-


1685


E. I---


urging Co


American Drug Sales Co
American Proprietary


cate -
Worthen,


C


~ E-------


Del-Tox:
Del-Tox Chemical Co__..
De Luxe De-Chlor:
De Luxe Products Co ..-.


Germalene
odorant:


- -
--- -

- ---


1667


Pine Disinfectant and


Germalene Chemical Co., Inc..__


Getem Ant Poison:
Fly Spray :
Church. L.


Getem


Grasselli
Dii


Manu


fa-turg Co--
facturing Co-


Calcium Arsenate
Pont de Nemours,


E. I_


- -
-- -


Herpleide Disinfectant Tabs:
Ilerpicide Co., Inc .....-.....
Winarick, Ar., Inc......------
High Grade Disinfectant:
Grade Pine Oil Disinfectant:
Sun Klean Chemical Co., Inc..__


Lead arsenate:
Niagara I
Co --- .
Leadzinc:
Niagara
Co ---.
Menderth:
Menderth,


prayer


Sprayer


& Chemical


& Chemical


Inc -...... ...-.-


1676

1686
1686
1689
1688
16S8


1672

1673

1671
1677


Mercury oxycyanide tablets:
Bard, C. R., Inc---------
Niagara Suspenso Lead Arsenate:
Niagara Sprayer & Chemic:
Co...-------------------


Pine oil disinfectant
Sun Klean Chemica
Red Diamond Chlorinated


Co.. Inc-
Lime:


Sinclair Manufacturing Co_.
Star Moth Chasers:
Indiana Botanic Gardens....
Meyer, J. E -----------
SMeyer. R. B- ----------
Royalite Coal Tar Disinfectant:


Pine


San-O
Silver

Sodium
Staggs


Disinfectant:


Royal Soap Manufacturing C


-Sen Antiseptic Spray:
Palustrepine, Inc---...--.
Germicide:
Keefe Chemical Co_... .
Keefe. D. J ..-------
m fluoride:
Sterling Products Co--
' One Dose Bot and Woim


sules:
Staggs.
Stages,
Sunny Clean
Cleaner:


Ca
Ca,


C. H- ---- ----- ---
C. H. & Sons.....
Household Bleach an


Lyon Products Co.,
Verdo Plant Insecticide:
Cenol Co..------.
Weinkle's Pine Cleanser:


Inc--


Weinkle Co----------- ..
Willson's Chlorine Crystals:
Willson Monarch Laboratorie
Inc
Worth Insect Spray:
Stock and Ca title Spray:
Amshel, M. L-----......
Exserco Products Co------


N. J. No.
. 1680
al
- 1673

- 1672
.- 1668
- 1678
- 11678
_ '1678

o- 1669
.- 1690
-- 1670
-_ 1670
1674
p-
_- 1679
1679
id
-_ 1675
- 1683

-- 1681
s,
1684


- 1682
1682


l Prosecution contested.








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA





3 1262 08582 4950


HI.
C


. :
"ill., ":*