Notices of judgment under the insecticide act

Issued-October 1942


J., I. F. 1812-1825
* ".


ga(P iSI.:r


United


States


Department


Agriculture


Agricultural Marketing Administration


ICES OF


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act]
S1812-1825


grd by the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., September 3, 19421
q&Ailteratlon and Misbranding of "fRoach Olio Caps." U. S. v. Pruden
11e*Dhtcal Company, a corporation. Plea of nolo contendere as to counts
.r2. 3, 3f4, 7, and 8. Counts 5 and 6 dlsmissel. Fined $20. (I. & F. 2173,
SSmple Nos. 28988-D, 70182-D).


.:Ofl the
;.fa; small
arsenic tr
required
. eeetiven
9a. ,2,. 1 9
! 4.uting- u1
airt;ian
Y Qfl-aH
1iliue -1
"Boa
ivitbin


product were found to consist of
amount of sodium arsenite and to
dioxide. the amount stated on the I
statement of ingredients. The label
less of the product for killing roaches
10, the United States Attorney for
pon a report by the Secretary of


informa
do, Fla.
9, 1939,
eh Olio
the mea


against


Pruden


, alleging interstate
from Orlando, Fla.,
Caps," which was


a green


paste containing


contain less than
tbel. The label (
bore unwarranted
and silverfish.
the Southern Disi
Agriculture, filed


Chemical


Company


6 per-
id not
claims


trict
in
a i


shipments on or about June 1,
into the State of Georgia, of a
an adulterated and misbranded


ling of the Insecticide Act of 1910.


.' ?lt., was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity
iW^professed standard and quality under which it was sold; namely,
|.. ide.6%."
I. t etwas alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, namely,
eaent. Arsenic Trioxide 6%" and "ROACH OLIO CAPS Kills
.es and silverfish Kills Ronches as Nothing Else Does Kills roaches
'alppp.. Silverfish eat the Olio It kills them CO(KROACHES AND
t^wo destructive pests IN Homes, Apartments, Libraries, Museums,
s, ..otelis, Public Buildings, Storage Warehouses, Theatres, Colleges,
and many Manufacturing Plants. Use plenty of Roach Olio Caps.
Rin.bookcases, cupboards, clothes closets, pantries, under refrigerators,
^ .'w .' drainboards, in attics near trunks, boxes, etc., in dark places
.books iand magazines are kept, and wherever there are cracks and
.. naches and Silverfish like the Olio; they eat it and die. After
v1.1 d.'appeared it is a good idea to keep the Caps around to
Sethat may hatch out, or stray insects that may appear later," were
4 misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since
Set' Contained less than 6 percent. of arsenic trioxide, and, when used
Sd^, would not kill roaches and silverfish.
rorjet -was misbranded further .in that it contained arsenic and the
g.|9 to' bear a statement of the total arsenic present therein and of
toi1oluble arsenic expressed as pp centum of metallic arsenic, and also
- MrtAQlnfu I'niartinllv f inirt- amnharmnnn nnrnnlv cnhmtannr'm athpr thnn


r


...
-----


*






536 INSECTICIDE ACT [N. J., I. F.

1813. Adulteration and misbranding of Pine Oi Dsinteefetant U. S.;
Jankner, Joseph Jankner, Morris Jankner, and Paul Jankner, co-partners,
trading under the name of the Saitary fl*ri Compound Co. Plea of
guilty entered by Louis Jankner. Fine $50. Dismissed as to other de-
fendants. (I. & F. No. 2212. Shmpl. I. D. No. 104.)
This product was found to possess a phenol coefficient less than that stated
on the label, and to contain water and mineral oil, and the label failed to bear
the required ingredient statement., .
On August 4, 1941, the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against Louis Jarner, Joseph4 Jankner, Morris Jankner,
and Paul Jankner, co-partners trading pnder the name of the Sanitary Floor
Compound Co., alleging shipment in interstate commerce on or about January 7,
1941, from Paterson, N. J., into the State of New York, of a quantity of "Pine
Oil Disinfectant," which was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within
the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be adulterated, in that its strength and purity
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, jameel,
"Pine Oil Disinfectant A Certified Disinfectant Made from Pure Steam Dis-
tilled Pine Oil." The product was alleged to be adulterated further, in that
another substance, namely, mineral oil, had been substituted in part for the
product, that is to say, for pine oil disinfectant made from pure steam-distilled
pine oil
The product was alleged to be misbranded, in that the statements, "Pine
Oil Disinfectant A Certified Disinfectant Made from Pure Steam Distilled


Pine Oil Phen. Coef.--2 plus Directions. F
infecting and Deodorizing Purposes, Dilute 1 Part Pine Oil to 40
borne on the label, were false and misleading, and by reason of


the product
not consist
pine oil, did
disinfectant
further, in
mineral oil,
plainly and


or
P
th


General Dis-
arts Water,"
e statements


was labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since it did
completely of pine oil disinfectant made from pure steam-distilled
Snot possess a phenol coefficient of 2 plus, and was not an effective
when used as directed. The product was alleged to be misbranded
that it consisted partially of inert substances, namely, water and
and the name and percentage amount thereof were not stated
correctly on the label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and the


percentage amount of each and every substance or ingredient of the product
having fungicidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert substances
present therein, stated plainly and correctly on the label.
On December 9, 1941, the defendant, Louis Jankner, pleaded guilty as charged
and was fined $50. Thereafter, the information was dismissed as to defendants,
Joseph, Morris, and Paul Jankner, for want of evidence to establish their con-
nection with Louis Jankner, as partners.


Assistant


GROVER B. HELL,
Secretary of Agriculture.


1814. Adulteration and misbranding of 'E-Z White Washing Fluid." U. S. v.
Joseph Oeehipinti and Angelo Bartoli, copartners, trading as the E-Z
White Chemical Products Compa ay. Plea of guilty. Fine $25 and costs.
(I. & F. No. 2213. I. D. Sample No. 73.)
Analysis of the product showed that it contained only 2.3 percent of sodium
bhypochlorite, the only active ingredient present, instead of 4.5 percent as claimed
by the label.. .o
On June 14, 1941, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
filed in the district court an information against Joseph Occhipinti and Angelo
On n-t<-n14 .^jn fHnnvn i^H.&rt* ^ -^- A~ni rw^ f7 ryi n|.. .^.. -~ a. n.... A. .-J... ril.. -- -- a






1812-18251


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


537


and that, by reason thereof, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead
the..purchaser, since it contained less than 4.5 per centum of sodium hypochlorite,


and more than 95.5 per centum of inert
SThe article was alleged to be misb
tially of inert substances (substances
did not prevent, destroy, repel, or mit
statement giving the name and perce
tauch inert ingredients; nor, in lieu
amount of the substance having fungi


ingre
rande
other
igate
ntage
there
cidal


dients.
d fuirt!
Than
fungi,
amoui
of, wei
proper


her,
sodi
and
at o0
rn tl
ties,


in tha
um hy
the la
f each
31. nal
and tl


t it consisted par-
pochlorite), which
bel did not bear n:i
ndr( ovprv nnf of
rie and pervilltage
ie total percentage


.at;inert substances, stated plainly and correctly on tlhe lIbel.
O...Oa January 19, 1942, pleas of guilty were entered and a line of $25, and costs,
was imposcwl.
GROVhSK B. HILL,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.


1815. Misbranding o01
Plea of guilt
The United States
upon a report by th
information against
interstate commerce
into the State of F
branded insecticide w
The product was
Ingredient: Sodium
efficient insecticide, j


Beetles *
lice. A pinch of
kills the lice and
false and mislead
active ingredients
the product when
would not protect 1
On February 2E
imposed.


PC
he
Pr
ng


f "Fluorex V
y. Fine $100
Attorney for
e Secretary
the American
on or about
lorida, of a


." IU. S. v. American Fluoride
. (I. & F. No. 2226. Sample 1. D.
* the Southern District of New
of Agriculture, filed in the disti
SFluoride Corporation, alleging
December 16, 19-10, from New
quantity of "Fluorex V" which


withinn the meaning of the
alleged to be misbranded


Fluosilicate
much used i
ultry raisers
powder is p
otects from
and tended


consisted


Corporate
No. 2128.)
York, act
rict court
shipment
York, N.
was a n


Insecticide Act of 1910.
in that the statements,


i75%" and "Fluorex V has p
n the household for the count
find Fluorex V very effective
laced on the various parts of


further invasions," borne on
to deceive and mislead purch


of sodium


fluoride


used as directed would not
from further invasions of lice.


1942, a


plea of


guilty


sodium


si


roved to


rol
aga
the
the
ase
lico


of
inst
bod
lab
rs, s
fluor


y
e
i
*i


on.

uing
an
in
Y.,
his-


"Active
be an
* *
chicken
. This
?l, were
nee the
de and


control all household beetles and


was entered and


a fine of $100 was


GROVER B. Hr.LL,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.


1816. Misbranding of "Family Brand Knockout Spray." U. S.
Company, a corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine $100.
I. D. No. 2932.)


v. Tri-State Sales
(I. & F. No. 2231.


This r
was not
On Oc
Georgia,
district
engaged
the deli
6, 1941,
State of
insectici


The
"Fami
insect
Spray


a
y
to


)rc
a
to
ai
coIn
.n


duct v
n "AA
ber 25,
Acting
urt an
busim


vould not
grade" I
, 1941, th
upon a
information


kill flies
household
e United
report by
on against


nor control fleas
spray, as stated
States Attorney
the Secretary 1
Sthe Tri-State S


in thle city of Albany,


when
on th
for th
of Agr
lies Co


State of Georgia.


used as directed and
e label.
ie Middle District of
culture. filed in the


in


pany, a corporation,
It was charged with


very for shipment and shipment in interstate commerce, on May
from the city of Albany, State of Georgia, to the city of Opelika,
Alabama, of a quantity of "Fanmily Brand Knockout Spray," a misbranded
de within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements on the label,
Brand Knockout Spray AA Grade Kills-Flies and other
iests Directions: Flies Close doors and windows.
)ward ceiling until room is fogged. After 10 min. open windows, sweep






538


INSECTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


1817. Adulteration and misbranding of
bags of "Miller Copoloidt" R
T D No, 137)


iller Copoloid." U. S. v. 120 six-pound
labeled and released. (I. & F, No. 2240.


The product was not effective against fungus diseases of apples which are
controlled by copper sprays and was injurious to vegetation on which it was
intended to be used.
On October 18, 1941, the United Statlf Attorney for the Northern District of


West Virginia, acting upon a report by he Secretary of Agr
district court a libel praying seizure ad condemnation of
of "Miller Copoloid" at Charles Towi W. V, alleging t
been shipped in interstate commerce c or about July 1,
Chemical & Fertilizer Corporation from Baltimore, Md., ar
was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within tU


Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be adulterated
on vegetation, namely, apples, cherries, and
copper sprays are commonly used on these
directed, the product would be injurious to such
The product was alleged to be misbranded
"Miller Copoloid A colloid copper fungicide
also some other plants as recommended. *


in that it was
pears during
crops, and, if
vegetation.
in that.the st
for use on c
* Copoloid ii


culture, filed in the
120 six-pound bags
hat the article had
1941, by the Miller


charging that it
meaning of the

intended for use
such periods as
used thereon as

atements, namely,
retain fruit trees,
s a fungicide used


during
from
label,
chaser
furgus


certain periods for spraying apples, On apples, use
2 to 2% lbs. of Copoloid to make 100 gallons of spray," borne on the
were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the pur-


p


since the product, when used as directed, is not effective
diseases of apples which are controlled by copper sprays.


against the


On April 9, 1942, the Miller Chemical Corporation, having filed claim to the
product, the court ordered its release after payment in full by the claimant of
the costs 'of the proceeding, and after relabeling by deleting and marking out
from the original labels on one side the words:


DIRECTIONS


Copoloid is a fungicide
Pears, Cherries, Grapes,
Grapes, etc., use from
spray.


Copoloid
with oil
oil spray


used during certain periods for spraying Apples,
and some other plants. On Apples, Pears, Cherries,
2 to 2% lbs. of Copoloid to make 100 gallons of


is especially designated for.use in dormant spraying in combination
sprays. Always puddle Obpoloid in water before adding to the



and on the other side the words:
A colloid copper fungicide for use on
plants as recommended.


certain fruit trees, also some other


GROVER B. HILL,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.


1818. Misbranding of "Empeopine." U S
entered. Fine of $40 imposed. (,
The product was not a disinfectant whei
percent water, an inert ingredient, and th
ingredi ent statement.
On December 31, 1941, the United State
of Washington. acting unon a report of tl


. v. John L. Hale. Plea of guilty
& F. No. 2245. ]. D. No. 2298.)
n used as directed and contained 21
ie label failed to bear the required


s Attorney
ie Secretary


for the Eastern
of Agriculture,


District
filed in


* ^ .;.


V







1812-1825]

disinfect floors, walls,
mills, schools, etc., and,


NOTICES C

and cellars ii
when used as


The product was alleged to
partially of an inert ingredient,
thereof were not stated plainly
liem thereof were the name and
or ingredient of the said article
tentage of the inert ingredient
on the label.
- On April 8, 1942, the defendant
each of the two counts, which fin


>F JUDGMENT


n office
directed


be misbranded
water, and the nat
and correctly, or
percentage amoun
having fungicidal
present therein,


539


buildings, restaurants, factories,
, would not disinfect drains.


further in
me and the r
Sat all, on
t of each an
properties,
stated plaii


that
erce
the
d ev
and
nly


consisted
,e amount
i1; nor in
substance
total per-
correctly


t entered a plea of guilty and was fined $20 on
e was paid.


GROVER B. HILL,


Agriculture.


SAssistant Secretary of


1819. Adulteration and misbranding of "Del-Tox." U. S. v. 20 eases of Del-Tox.
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F.
2252. I. D. No. 3602.)
On December 15, 1941, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District
of Kentucky, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the


district a libel praying the seizure and
of Del-Tox, each cse containing 12 quar
had been shipped in interstate commerce,
,nati, Ohio, to Covington, Ky., and was a
Within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
SThe product was alleged to be adulter
below the professed standard and qua
"Active Ingredients-Sodium Hypochlo
_Volume."
The product was alleged to be misbr
Ingredients-Sodium Hypochlorite 5%, I
on the label, were false and misleading
purchaser, because the article contain
less than 5 per centum, and inert ingre
per centum, by volume.
On January 13, 1942, no claimant ha


tion and
destroyed.


forfeiture


entered


20, Misbranding of "Pine-O-Lene."


S. as H. V
each of 1
i! Analysis of tl
label failed to
SStated the produ
*. On March 23.
Third Division,


. Smith & Compan
two counts (I. & F
he product showed
bear the required
ct to be nontoxic.
1942, the United S
acting upon a re


In the district court an
Suith & Company, St. I
6r about September 12,
branded fungicide with
'Pine-O-Lene" was a
fMdlffflI^ kn L nWman an 41.nLa


condemnation of 20 cases, more or less,
t bottles. It was alleged that the article
, on or about April 10, 1941, from Cincin-
n adulterated and misbranded fungicide
Sof 1910.
ated, in that its strength and purity fell
lity under which it was sold, namely,
rite 5%, Inert Ingredients, 95%. By


anded, in that the s
nert Ingredients 95%
and tended to deceive
d sodium hypochlorit
Idients in a proportion


ving appeared, judgn


ordered


that


statements, "Active
By Volume," borne
e and mislead the
.e in a proportion
n greater than 95

2ent of condemna-


the product


GROVER B. HILL,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.
S. v. Henry V. Smith, doing business


y. Plea of guilty entered. Fine of $10 on
. No. 2254. I. D. No. 3784.)
it to contain 23 percent of water and the
ingredient statement. The label incorrectly

states Attorney for the District of Minnesota,
port by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed


information against Henry V


?aul, Minn.,
1941, of a q
n the meanil
alleged to be
Ic.IknI mwynne


alleging
quantity
ig of the
misbra
p'mn In nnj,


Smith


trading as


H. V.


shipment in interstate commerce on
of "Pine-O-Lene" which was a mis-
Insecticide Act of 1910.
oded in that the statement "It is
.3 ....:cSlrinnA an i A dn n 4-4w A 4-n Annnica


p






INSJCTI IDE ACT


1821. Adulteration and misbranding of "Sodium Fuinoride." T. S. v
more or less, of Sodium Fluoride, Decree of condemnation
relabeled and released under hond. (I. FP. Nos. 2257 and
Nos. 2388 and 2389.)
The product was labeled 'Sodinum Wuoride" "bt consisted of a
sodium fluoride, sodium carbonate, caltm compounds, and other
On February 11, 1942, the United Sttes Al orno for the East
of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report y the Secretary of Agricult
the district court a libel praylpg ei re and condemnation of 5
"Sodium Fluoride" at Philadelphia, a, a lleging thu the article
shipped in interstatecommerce on ember 12 and 13, 1941, I
Laboratories, Inc., from Long Island ity, N. Y., nd cl *rging tha
was ai adnO uiated and misbranded insei'. .' 1, i the U,"'
Insecticide Act of 1910.
The product was alleged to be:adulterated in that (1) its s
purity fell below the professed standard and quality under which
and (2) other substances had been substituted in part from the
is to say, sodium fluoride.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the state
.Fluoride," borne on the label, was false andmisleading and tende
and mislead the purchaser, since the article consisted of a mixture
fluoride, sodium carbonate, calcium compounds, and other substa
was misbranded further in that it consisted partially of inert subst


than sodium fluoride, which would
sects, and the label did not bear
amount of each and every one of su


not prevent, destroy, repel, or
a statement of the name and
ch inert ingredients, nor, in lieu


[N. J.,


and produnet
2258. 1. D.


mndturehof
substances.
ern District
Lure, filed in
5 barrels of
e had been
by the Cole
t rhe article
ning of thi-

tre'ngth and
it was sold,
article, that
ent "Sodium
d to deceive
e of sodium
nces, and it
ances, other
mitigate in-
I percentage
thereof, was


the name and percentage amount of each and every ingredient having insecticidal
properties, and the total percentage of the inert ingredients, stated plainly and
.correctly on the label....
On March 13 and 26, 1941, the court entered decrees of forfeiMt
demnation. Bonds acceptable to the court were furnished by the consignees,
whereupon the product was released to the consignees on condition that it would
not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to the laws of the United
States, or any Statb, Territory, or Insular possession and that it would be
relabeled under the supervision of a representative of the Insecticide Division,.
Agricultural Marketing Service.1
GuOVEa B. HIu.,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.
1822. Adulteration and misbranding of "Standard Cresol Compound U. S. P. XI
(Liquor Cresolis Saponatus)." U. S. v. 3, more or less, 55-gallon drums
of the product. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruc-
tion entered. (I. & F, No. 2259, I. D. No. 3969.)


On or about February 25, 1942, the United States Attorney for
District of South Carolina, acting upon a report of the Secretary of
filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation
each containing 55 gallons of a product bearing the name "Stan
Compound U. S. P. XI (Liquor Cretblis Saponatus)" at Orange
alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce
December 4, 1941, by the Standard Dinfectant Company, Memphis
charging that it was adulterated in that the statement quoted
on the label, represented that it was a standard cresol compound
was not a standard cresol compound as prescribed in the Un
Pharmacopoeia XI, but another substance, tar acids, had been substil
for cresol. It was alleged further, that the article was misbran.


the Eastern
Agriculture,
of 3 drums
idard Cresol
burg, S. C.,
on, or about
, Tenn., and
Lbove, borne
, whereas it
fited States


Luted in
ded, in


540


part
that






1612-1825]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


541


ASZSJ Misbranding of '"Buchanan Gnat Oil." U. S. v. R. B. Buchanan Seed Cornm-
pany, a corporation. Plea of guilty on count 2. Count 1 dismissed.
Fine of $75 paid. (I. & F. No. 2262. I. D. No. 1869.)
Analysis of the product showed it to contain over 92 percent water and the
label failed to bear the required ingredient statement.


On April 6, 11942, the Unite
Tennessee, Western Division, a
tore, filed in the district court
Company, a Tennessee corporate


or about March 29,
a quantity of "Buch
the meaning of the
The product was
* Flies, etc."
misleading and tend
when used as direc
by the abbreviation
in that it consisted


1941, from
anan Gnat
Insecticide


d States Attorney for
acting upon a report of
an information against
ion, alleging shipment
Memphis, Tenn., into
Oil," which was a mi
Act of 1910.


alleged to be misbrand
ind "An excellent *
d to deceive and mislea
id would not repel flies
'etc." The product was
partially of an inert su


prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
and percentage amount of the in
name and percentage amount of t
and the total percentage of the in
on the label.
On May 2, 1942, the defendant
tained in count 2 of the inform
Count 1 of the information was di


ed


i
t
s


the Western District o0
the Secretary of Agricul-
the R. B. Buchanan Seed
n interstate commerce on
he State of Arkansas, of
branded fungicide within


that


the statements


"For


* Fly Repellent" were false and
d the purchaser, since the article
nor all other insects represented
alleged to be misbranded further
bstance, water, which would not


insects, and the label
3rt substance, nor, in


he ingredients 1
iert ingredients,


entered
tion. A
missed.


having
state


a plea of guilty
fine of $75 was


Assistant


did not bear th
lieu thereof, w
insecticidal pro
d plainly and c(


e name
ere the
perties,
correctly


to the charges con-
imposed and paid.


GROVER B. HELL,
Secretary of Agriculture.


1824. Adulteration and misbranding of "PLEE-ZING IKLE-CUE BLEACH." U. S.
v. 235 Cases, more or less, of "Plee-Zing Kie-Cue Bleach." Default de-
cree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction, entered. (I. & F. No.
2264. I. D. No. 3630.)


The product was found
ingredients than .was sta
On March 3, 1942, the
Ohio, acting upon a report
court a libel praying seib
S"Plee-Zing Kle-Cue Bleac
been shipped in interstate
SChemical Co., from Chica


to contain
ted on the


U'
t b
sur
h,
CO
go,


ated and misbranded fungicide,
1910.
'- The product was alleged to


fell below the professed stan'
"Active Ingredients Sodium F
The product was alleged toc
Sgredients Sodium Hypochlor
Son the label, were false and
pur.Dchaser, since the product
iilgredients than were stated
SOs May 21, 1942, no one
was entered. It was further
. Cases, more or less, of Plee
manner as in the discretion
' ^l~f I-d.snnnJ- ti


less sodium hypochlorite and
label.


I


united States Attorney for the Southern
y the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
e and condemnation of 235 cases, more
' at Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging that the
mmerce on or about January 19, 1942, by
Ill., and charging that the product was


within


the meaning


be adulterated


dard and
lypochlori
Sbe misbr
ite 5%
misleadin
contained


in that


quality under
te 5% Inern
anded in that
Inert Ingred
g and tended
less sodium


nore inert

District of
the district
or less, of
article had
the Barton
an adulter-


of the Insecticide Act


its strength


* which it w
t Ingredient
Sthe state
clients Watei
to deceive
hypochlorite


purity


as sold, namely,
s Water 94,%."
ents, "Active In-
r 94%%," borne
and mislead the
and more inert


on the label.
appearing as claimant, an order of condemnation
ordered that "Two Hundred and Thirty-five (235)
-Zing Kle-Cue Bleach be wholly destroyed in such


of the


United States Marshal may


best serve


IJ
a
Ie


!


- m






542


INSECTICIDE


ACT


iN. J..


L E'~


district court a libel prayig seizure and condemnation of 197 one-gallon bottles
of "Sno-Sani' at Chicago, Ili alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-
state commerce on or about December 13, 1941, and January 19 and 21, 1942, by
the Standard Food Produtts, In chndt*apolis, Ind., and charging that it was


an adulterated and misbratded fngicide within the meaning of the Insecticide
Act of 1910.


The product was alleged to be adulterated


professed


standard and quality


below the


n that its strength and purity fell


which


was


sold,


the statements
nts 94.75%" a
id represented


under


"Active Ingredients Sodium Hypet6liorite. 5.25%."


The product


Ingredients


was alleged to be iisbranded


Hypochiorire


.25%
a label


Sodium


Contents One Gallon," borne on


article


contained


sodium


hypochlorite


that


Inert Ingredie
, purported ar


a propo


percent and inert ingredients in a proportion of no


that the net contents were one gallon


hypochlorite and more


contents were
The article


thai


inert ingredi4
n claimed on


whereas the


cents than


was misbranded further


laibel.


namely,

"Active


nd
thai


"Net
L the


rtion of not 1gs than 5625
mi.ore than .Tf.Wpercent, and
article contained less sodium.


stated on


the label


the statements


"This


the net


is a Res-


taurant Grade Sno-San For dishwashing use either of the following methods:


Wash


detergent.


the dishes, silver or glassware
Rinse with warm water and imr


to each 4 gallons of water.


'VII


nerse


Then rinse with clear w


trm water and soap or other
n a solution of 1 oz. Sno-SaQ
' ter.


Wash


in hot water


2 gallons of wash water.


1 oz.


Sno-San


to 4 gallons


with


detergent.


Finally rinse


Then


in clear water.


water makes a solution


Sno-San


to each>


of 100 parts per million


available chlorine for rinsing hands."


borne on the tag,


were false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead


the purchaser, since the article when used as directed wou!d not be an effective


disinfectant and would not make a solution


able


chlorine"


On April


~vhen


23, 1942,


diluted


as directed.


of ICO parts per million of


no claimant having appeared, judgment of


"avaiE,.


condemnation


and forfeiture was entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.


GOVER B, HnILL, '. *
Assistant Secretary of Agriculturrd
; b


INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 1812-1825


Buchanan


Del-
Emj

E-Z


Gnat Oil
Buchanan,


R. B..


Company ---- -


Tox ---- --------- -- -
peopine:
Empire Chemical Co----_-
Hale. John L -i -- .. -..n I-l-in
White WashinE Fluid:


Family B
Fluorex


Miller


E-Z W-hite


Chemical


Products Co.. .... --.
Occhipinti, Joseph, and Bar-
toli, Angeloot--S _.r
lrand Knockout Swray


Tri-State
V:-


American


Sales


Ca---


Fluoride Corpora-


tion..~.. .~- --


Copoloid:
Miller Chemical & Ferilfer
Corporation. _._ ..-.__


Pine


liS23
1819
1818
1818

1814


1814
<1816
* $

1815

1817


Oil Disinfectant :
Jankner, Louis;
Joseph; JanI
ris ; Jan! ner,
Sanitary Floor
Co -. ......


Pine-O-Lene:
Smith, H. V., &
Plee-Zing Kle-Cue Bleach:
Barton Chemical


Roach Olio
Pr
Sno-San:


Caps:


uden


Chemical


N.
Jankner,
kner, Mor-
-aul --
Compound


till.


* .. ...


* .; i..
... .: li .
::
*..*
* .**I**
'. 1 -K
I..
* i
S::i


Company--


Co--


Company-


Standard Food Products,
Sodium Fluoride:
Cole LahoratoriPes. Inc....--


Standard


Cresol


Stan


Compound


SLin'or


Ciesc


UT. S. P,
lis Sap-


onatus) :
dard Disinfectant


*ITT
4:
* iii


/ i:


.I I ..* *


1<


l


3
j


*


. i


,