N. J., I. F. R. 134-169 Issued April 1953
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC1
PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION
LIVESTOCK BRANCH
NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE,
FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT
134-169
The notices of judgment herewith relate to cases arising in the United States
District Courts and are approved for publication, as provided in section 6 of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U. S. C. 1946 ed. Supp. V,
135d).
H. E. Reed,
Director, Livestock Branch,
Production and Marketing Administration.
Washington, D. C. January 29, 1953.
134. Lack of registration of "ARAB U-DO-IT Concentrate Termite Control."
U. S. v. 47 pint bottles and 48 quart bottles, more or less, of "ARAB
U-DO-IT Concentrate Termite Control." Default decree of condemna-
tion, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 166. I. D. No. 22473)
The product, "ARAB U-DO-IT Concentrate Termite Control," was not reg-
istered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On October 24, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 47
pint bottles and 48 quart bottles, more or less, of "ARAB U-DO-IT Concentrate
Termite Control," at Washington, D. C, alleging that the product was an
economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or about October 5,
1951, by Federal Chemical Co., Inc., from Indianapolis, Ind., in violation of
the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On January 24, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a default decree* of
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product
be destroyed.
135. Lack of registration, misbranding, and adulteration of "NO-ODOR DISIN-
FECTANT F. D. A. PHENOL COEFFICIENT 6." U. S. v. 60 drums, 55-
gallons each, more or less, of "NO-ODOR DISINFECTANT F. D. A.
PHENOL COEFFICIENT 6." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
and destruction. ( I. F. & R. No. 167. I. D. No. 22479. )
The product, "NO-ODOR DISINFECTANT F. D. A. PHENOL COEFFICIENT
6," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, An examination of two samples of the product showed that they contained
247576—53- 1 79
80 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I. F. R.N.J.
0.86 percent and 1.63 percent of alkyl (C8H17 to CisHst) dimethyl benzyl ammonium
chloride, respectively. When tested, the product was found to have a phenol
coefficient of 0.8 instead of a phenol coefficient of 6 as claimed.
On November 13, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 60
drums, 55-gallons each, more or less, of "NO-ODOR DISINFECTANT F. D. A.
PHENOL COEFFICIENT 6," at Washington, D. C, alleging that the product was
an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or about Septem-
ber 22, 1951, by the Universal Chemical Company, from Boston, Mass., in violation
of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning of the
act in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality as
expressed on its labeling since its label bore the statements :
"PHENOL COEFFICIENT 6
* * *
Active Ingredients: 3%
Alkyldimethylbenzyl Ammonium
Chlorides
Inert Ingredients 97%
Water
* * *»
whereas the product had a phenol coefficient of less than 6, and it contained less
than 3 percent of alkyl (CSH,7 to CisH3t) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride
and more than 97 percent of inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
in that its labeling bore the statements :
"PHENOL COEFFICIENT 6
* * *
Active Ingredients: 3%
Alkyldimethylbenzyl Ammonium
Chlorides
Inert Ingredients 97%
Water
* • *"
whereas the product had a phenol coefficient of less than 6, and it contained less
than 3 percent of alkyl (CsHi? to dsHn) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride
and more than 97 percent of inert ingredients.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labeling accompanying the product did not contain directions
for use which were necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection
of the public.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling did not bear a warning or caution statement which
was necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man
and other vetebrate animals.
On January 22, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.
136. Lack of registration and misbranding of "GULCO CLEANER POLISHER
WITH MAGIC PARAMECIUM." U. S. v. 6,706 1-pint bottles and 4,188
1-quart bottles, more or less, of "GULCO CLEANER POLISHER WITH
MAGIC PARAMECIUM." Decree of condemnation and forfeiture. (LP.
& R. No. 170. I. D. No. 21789. )
The product, "GULCO CLEANER POLISHER WITH MAGIC PARAME-
CIUM," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Ro-
denticide Act, and the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not
bear an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On December 4, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
of Alabama, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 81
the United States District Court ;i libel praying seizure for condemnation and
confiscation of 6,706 1-pint containers aud 4,188 1-quart containers, more or
less, of "GULCO CLEANER POLISHER WITH MAGIC PARAMECIUM," at
Birmingham, Ala., alleging that tin" product was an economic poison which had
been transported interstate, on or about .May 15, 1951, and June 18, 1951, by Gulco
Chemical Co., Inc., from Gulfport, Miss., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture, as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear an
ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of each of the active in-
gredients, together with total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product,
or an ingredient statement giving the names of each of the active and each of
the inert ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each present
in each classification, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients,
in the product.
On February 15. 1952, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was
ordered that the United States Marshal give the product to some authorized
agent or representative of an authorized and worthy hospital or charitable
institution, for the use and benefit of such institution and for no other purpose.
137. Lack of registration and misbranding of "GLAMORENE THE PROFES-
SIONAL CARPET CLEANER." U. S. v. 240 1-gallon cans and 1,910
1/2-gallon cans, more or less, of "GLAMORENE THE PROFESSIONAL
CARPET CLEANER." Consent decree of condemnation and release under
bond. (I. F.&R. No. 171. I. D. Nos. 20642-20651.)
The product, "GLAMORENE THE PROFESSIONAL CARPET CLEANER,"
was not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, and the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear an
ingredient statement as required by the act.
On December 7, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 240
1-gallon cans, and 1,910 ^-gallon cans, more or less, of "GLAMORENE THE
PROFESSIONAL CARPET CLEANER," at Washington, D. C, alleging that
the product was an economic poison which had been sold in the District of
Columbia, on or about November 5, 1951, by the Slade Co., Inc., in violation
of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that its labels did not bear an
ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of each of the active
ingredients, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, or an
ingredient statement giving the names of each of the active and each of the inert
ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each present in each
classification, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients.
The Slade Company, Washington. D. C, claimed ownership of the product
and requested its release under bond for the purpose of removing the product
from under the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On December 21, 1951,
a consent decree of condemnation was entered, and the product was released to
the claimant under bond.
138. Lack of registration and misbranding of "CEDAR-LUX." U. S. v. 33 5-pound
cans and 15 10-pound cans, more or less, of "CEDAR-LUX." Default de-
cree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 174.
I. D. Nos. 22695 and 22696.)
The product, "CEDAR-LUX," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examination of the product showed that
the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear a caution state-
ment or a correct ingredient statement as required by the act. The product
was also found to be misbranded within the meaning of the act.
On December 19, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
of California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
82 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I. F. R.N.J.
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of 33 5-pound cans and 15 10-pound cans, more or less, of "CEDAR-
LUX," at San Jose, Calif., alleging that the product was an economic poison
which had been transported interstate, on or about October 11, 1951, by Cedar-
Lux Products Company, Inc., from Kansas City, Mo., in violation of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture, as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
the containers of the product did not bear a warning or caution statement which
was necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man
and other vertebrate animals.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling bore the statements :
« * * *
CEDAR-LUX
Guaranteed MOTH PROOF
for for
♦CLOSETS *STUDIOS
♦SHELVES *ATTICS
*DENS *CHESTS
*RUMPUS *BUREAU
ROOMS DRAWERS
* * *
MOTH REPELLENT
* * *
Remember, you can use CEDAR-LUX in many ways, not only to
protect against moths but to capture that fragrant, true woodsy
odor of cedar and transplant it to your home in dens, recreation
rooms, attic or studio. For mothproofing chests, drawers, boxes,
trunks, it is wonderful ! POSTIVELY KEEPS OUT MOTHS !
Mothproof all your closets this way
* • *
* * * Cedar-Luxing all clothes closets, chests, trunks, boxes,
anything and everything into which they pack or store things to
prevent moths and other insects getting to them.
* * *
CEDAR-LUX is recognized as a guardian against moths,
CEDAR-LUX seals all cracks and crevices, therefore keeps out
vermin, moths and dust.
* * *
CEDAR-LUX protects your wearables not for a few months but 12
months each year and keeps protecting them for years.
* * *
Now you can protect your furs, men's and women's garments, wear-
ables, etc., by keeping them safe and sound, away from moths and
vermin, in a CEDAR-LUX CLOSET which you yourself can make
with the aid of CEDAR-LUX and an ordinary paint brush. Now
you can apply CEDAR-LUX to the walls and ceiling of any ordinary
closet and make it absolutely mothproof — protective — * * *
* * *
CEDAR-LUX resurfaces walls, sealing all cracks where moths and
other vermin breed.
* * •
CEDAR-LUX GIVES YOU
LOW-COST PROTECTION
One damaged dress or skirt, one suit or man's jacket ruined by
moths, larvae or vennin in your fur coat or other valuable wearing
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 83
apparel would be enough to CEDAR-LUX not one but several closets
in your home. CEDAR-LUX is now giving positive protection in
thousands of homes throughout the land.
* * *
CEDAR-LUX is endorsed in Farmer's Bulletin No. 1353 as being
protective against moths and larvae.
* * *
Read What This U. S. D. A. Bulletin On Red Cedar Says:
* * *
— U. S. D. A. Farmer's Bulletin No. 1353
* * *
Cedar-Lux
never fails to work
Just think — with an ordinary paint brush and CEDAR-LUX you
can mothproof and cedarize every closet in the house. Think of
the savings in motheaten clothing plus the incidental cost of con-
stantly buying moth preventatives which give only short lived
•protection.
* * *
An ordinary closet was CEDAR-LUXED. Eight months later
GO adult moths were released in a vestibule built around the partly
open door of the CEDAR-LUXED closet. The only place that they
could get suitable material on which to lay eggs was in the closet.
No moths entered the closet and two weeks later no eggs were
found on the woolens in the closet.
* * *
Cedar-Lux * * * For mothproofing chests, drawers, boxes, trunks,
it is wonderful ! POSITIVELY KEEPS OUT MOTHS !
* * *
Guaranteed
Proved by laboratory tests and backed by years of experience,
CEDAR-LUX is both mothproof and fireproof. Used extensively
by leading hotels, apartment houses and in thousands of homes.
* * *
Cedar-Lux
* * * guards your clothes against moths and other insects.
Don't Take Chances
Moths know no seasons and are no respector of new clothes or old
clothes. Why permit them to feast on dresses, skirts, men's suits
and other wearables when it's such a simple matter to brush on
CEDAR-LUX and play safe. Moths hate cedar ! Cedar-Lux keeps
them out.
* * *
CEDAR-LUX saves packing and storing clothes in expensive
bags. Eliminates the buying of moth balls and other costly
insecticides.
* * *
Make Every Clothes Closet a Mothproof Cedar Closet!
* * *
Just one coat with CEDAR-LUX and you have 100% protection.
* * *"
which statements were false or misleading since they implied or represented
that the product was endorsed in U. S. D. A. Farmer's Bulletin No. 1353 as
being protective against moths and larvae and that, when used as directed,
the product: (1) Would mothproof clothes closets, storage boxes, bureau
drawers, shelves, rumpus rooms, studios, chests, attics, recreation rooms,
dens, and other spaces; (2) would stop, repel, and keep out moths; (3) would
protect dens, recreation rooms, attics, and studios against moths; (4) would
84 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I.P. E.N.J.
prevent moths and other insects from getting into clothes closets, chests, trunks,
boxes, and other places where things are packed and stored; (5) would guard
clothes against moths and other insects; (6) would seal all cracks and crevices
and thus prevent the breeding of moths, the entry of all moths and vermin,
and the presence <>f all insects; (7) would make every clothes closet a moth-
proof cedar closet; (8) would be a guardian against moths and give 100 per-
cent protection against moths ; (9) would protect and keep all moths and vermin
away from furs, men's and women's garments, wearables, and all other articles
implied by the term "etc."; (10) would give positive protection for dresses,
skirts, suits, and men's jackets against moths, larvae, and all vermin ; and
(11) would eliminate the buying of moth balls and other costly insecticides;
whereas, the product was not endorsed in U. S. D. A. Farmer's Bulletin No.
1353 as being protective against moths and larvae and, when used as directed,
the product : ( 1 ) Would not mothproof clothes closets, storage boxes, bureau
drawers, shelves, rumpus rooms, studios, chests, attics, recreation rooms, dens,
and other spaces; (2) would not stop, repel, or keep out moths; (3) would
not protect dens, recreatiou rooms, attics, or studios against moths; (4) would
not prevent moths and other insects from getting into clothes closets, chests,
trunks, boxes, and other articles in which things are packed and stored; (5)
would not guard clothes against moths and other insects; (6) would not
seal all cracks and crevices and thus prevent the breeding of moths, the* entry
of all moths and vermin, or the presence of all insects; (7) would not make
every closet a mothproof cedar closet; (8) would not be a guardian against
moths or give 100 percent protection against moths; (9) would not protect
and keep all moths and vermin away from furs, men's and women's garments,
wearables, and all other articles implied by the term "etc."; (10) would not
give positive protection for dresses, skirts, suits, or men's jackets against moths,
larvae, and all vermin; and (11) would not eliminate the buying of moth balls
and other costly insecticides.
It was alleged that the 5-pound cans of the product were further misbranded
within the meaning of the act in that the labeling stated in part :
<<* * *
INGREDIENTS
Active— Cedarwood Oil 8y2 % Chlordane 1%
Inactive — Ground Cedar and Other Material 91%%
* * *
INGREDIENTS
Active — Cedarwood Oil 8%%
Inactive — Ground Cedar and Other Material 91%%
Active — Chlordane 1%
* * #>»
which statements were false and misleading since the product contained less
than 8% percent cedarwood oil, less than 1 percent chlordane (technical), and
more than 91% percent inert (inactive) ingredients ; the total claimed percentage
of active and inert ingredients in the product was more than 100 percent ; and
the term "chlordane" was an insufficient designation for the active ingredient
technical chlordane, which consisted of octochloro-4, 7-methano-tetrahydro-indane
and related compounds.
It was alleged that the 10-pound cans of the product were further misbranded
in that the labeling stated in part :
it* * #
INGREDIENTS
Active — Cedarwood Oil S%%
Inactive — Ground Cedar and Other Material 91%%
* * *"
which statements were false and misleading as the product contained less than
8% percent cedarwood oil, more than 91% percent inert (inactive) ingredients,
and contained another active ingredient, to wit, technical chlordane, which was
not named in the ingredient statement.
On January 8, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 85
139. Lack of registration and required information on label and misbranding of
"Better MOTH RINGS and Not Weight: Approximately 8 oz." U. S. v.
200 cases, more or less, of "Better MOTH RINGS Net Weight: Approxi-
mately 8 oz." Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond.
(I. F. & R. No. 178. I. D. Nos. L'3599, 23606, 23607, 23608 and 23609.)
The product, "Better MOTH RINGS," was not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product
showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear a
proper statement of net weight or measure of contents as required by the act.
Also, the product was found to be misbranded within the meaning of the act.
On February 29, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 200
cases, more or less, of "Better MOTH RINGS Net Weight : Approximately S oz.,"
at Aurora, 111., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been
transported interstate, on or about January 24, 1952, by Better Brushes, Inc., from
Palmer, Mass., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product failed to comply with the act in that the
labels on its containers did not bear a proper statement of net weight or
measure of the contents of the containers in that the statement of net weight
appearing on the containers, to wit, "Net Weight : Approximately 8 oz.," was
indefinite and might be misleading.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that the statement, "Net Weight : Approximately 8 oz.," borne on the
labels was false and misleading since the average net weight of the containers
was substantially less than 8 ounces.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling bore the statements :
"Better * * *
MOTH Protects clothes against moths
RINGS * * *
Will last 4 to 6 months.
* * *
BETTER MOTH RINGS PROTECT CLOTHES— BETTER
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
1. For effective moth control, articles should be thoroughly brushed
and cleaned.
2. Hang BETTER Moth Rings high in closet ; vapors settle rather
than rise.
BETTER Moth Rings when used at rate of 1 lb. to 10 cubic feet,
protect clothes against moths in all stages of growth * * * eggs,
larvae, cocoons, etc.
* * *»
and that such statements were false and misleading since they implied or repre-
sented that the product when used as directed would provide effective control
of clothes against moths for a period of 4 to 6 months, whereas the product,
when used as directed, would not provide effective control of clothes from moths
for a pei'iod of from 4 to 6 months.
Better Brushes, Inc., of Boston, Mass., claimed ownership of the product, and
requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing the product into
compliance with the act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree.
On May l(i, 1952, a decree of condemnation was entered and it was ordered that
the product be released to the claimant under bond.
140. Lack of registration and misbranding of "CEDAR-LUX." U. S. v. 95 5-pound
cans, more or less, 200 copies, more or less, of a report on "Testing of
Cedar-Lux for moth killing and repellency"; 100 sheets, more or less, cap-
tioned "Cedar Lux Nationally Advertised"; 25 display cards, more or less,
of "Cedar-Lux Nature's Own Lining With True Cedar Odor"; and 25 card-
board cartons, more or less, labeled "1 5-lb Can Cedar-Lux Natures En-
86 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I. F.R.N. J.
during Cedar Lining Moth Repellent." Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 179. I. D. No. 24916.)
The product, "CEDAR-LUX," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the labels affixed to the containers of the
product did not bear an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On March 10, 1952, the United States Atttorney for the District of Massachu-
setts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, tiled in the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 95 5-pound cans, more or less, of "CEDAR-LUX" : 2<>0 copies, more or less, of
a report on "Testing of Cedar-Lux for moth killing and repellency"; 100 sheets,
more or less, captioned "Cedar-Lux Nationally Advertised"; 25 display cards,
more or less, of "Cedar-Lux Nature's Own Lining With True Cedar Odor"; and
25 cardboard cartons, more or less. Labeled "1 5-lb. Can Cedar-Lux Nature's En-
during Cedar Lining Moth Repellent," at Boston, Mass.. alleging that the product
was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or about
February 11, 1952, by Cedar-Lux Products Co., Inc., from Kansas City, Mo., in
violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that its labeling did not bear an
ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of each of the active in-
gredients, together with total percentage of the inerl ingredients, in the product,
or an ingredient statement giving the names of each of the active and each of
the inert ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each present in
each classification, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients,
in the product.
On April 21, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation and
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product he destroyed.
141. Lack of registration of "EXTERM-O-LITE." U. S. v. 13* packages, more
or less, each containing two "EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZERS" and "EX-
TERM-O-LITE INSECTICIDE"; 50 display cards, more or less, captioned
"For Sure Pest Control Exterm-O-Lite Vaporizer"; and 50 circulars, more
or less, bearing the statement "9 TIMES MORE POWERFUL THAN DDT
EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZER OF PURE LINDANE." Consent decree
of condemnation and release under bond. ( I. F. & R. No. 182. I. D. 24579.)
The product, "EXTERM-O-LITE." was not registered under the Federal In-
secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On April 4, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Cali-
fornia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 138 packages, more or less, each containing two "EXTERM-O-LITE VAPOR-
IZERS" and "EXTERM-O-LITE INSECTICIDE"; 50 display cards, more or
less, captioned "For Sure Pest Control Exterm-O-Lite Vaporizer"; and 50 circu-
lars, more or less, bearing the statement "9 TIMES MURE POWERFUL THAN
DDT EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZER OF PURE LINDANE." at Los Angeles,
Calif., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been trans-
ported interstate, on or about March 10, 1952, by the Candle-Lite Chemical Com-
pany, from Miami, Fla.. in vio'ation of (he act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
Candle-Lite Chemical Company, of Miami, Fla., claimed ownership of the prod-
uct, and requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing it into com-
pliance with the act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On
July 21, 1952, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered that the
product be released to the claimant under bond.
142. Lack of registration and misbranding and adulteration of "CARCO-X."
U. S. v. N. F. Rea, trading as Getzum Products. Defendant found guilty
on count 1 of violation of 7 U. S. C. 135a (a) (1). Not guilty on counts 2
and 3. Imposition of sentence suspended and defendant placed on proba-
tion for a period of 3 years. (I. F. & R. No. 142. I. D. Nos. 17771, 17768,
and 17772.)
The product, "CARCO-X," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 87
On October 8, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Washington, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
District Court an information against N. F. Rea, trading as Getzum Products,
alleging shipments, in interstate commerce, of quantities of "CARCO-X" which
were in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
In count 1 it was alleged that the defendant, on or about October 18, 1948,
shipped and delivered for shipment from Sumner, Wash., to Missoula, Mont.,
48 y2-pint containers and 24 1-pint containers of a product known as
"CARCO-X" and that :
1. The product was not registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as
required by section 4 of the act.
2. The product was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its
labeling bore statements relative to the product and its ingredients
which were false and misleading as the statements represented or
implied that the product continued 5 percent of hexachlorocyclohexane,
and that when used as directed, it would control all weevils on veg-
etables and all weevils and borers on flowers; would repel all insects
on roses; and would be "your garden protector"; whereas the product
contained less than 5 percent of hexachlorocyclohexane, and when
used as directed would not control all weevils on vegetables and all
weevils and borers on flowers; would not repel all insects on roses;
and would not be "your garden protector."
3. The product was further misbranded within the meaning of the act
in that its labels did not contain a warning or caution statement which
was necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to
living man and other vertebrate animals in that the labels should
have contained but did not contain suitable warnings or cautions
against the danger of skin irritation or injury from inhalation in
use of the product.
4. The product, when used as directed, would be injurious to vegetation
to which applied, since when so used on roses it would injure the
foliage thereof and when so used on certain food crops, including lima
beans and potatoes, it would injure the flavor of such crops, and in
that for these reasons the labeling accompanying the product did not
contain directions for use which were necessary and, if complied with,
adequate for protection of the public.
0. The product was adulterated within the meaning of the act in that its
strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under
which it was sold, since its labeling stated that it contained 5 percent
of hexachlorocyclohexane, whereas the product contained less than
5 percent of hexachlorocyclohexane.
In count 2 it was alleged that the defendant, on or about March 21, 1949,
shipped and delivered for shipment from Sumner, Wash., to Salem, Oreg., 48
%-pint containers. 24 1-quart containers, and 6 1-gallon containers of a product
known as "CARCO-X" and that :
1. The product was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its
labeling bore statements, relative to the product and its ingredients,
which were false and misleading in that these statements implied or
represented that the product contained 5 percent of hexachlorocyclo-
hexane and that, when used as directed, it would control powdery
mildew on roses, Fairy Rings in lawns, potato scab, all weevils on
vegetables and flowers, all borers and similar pests on flowers, all
root maggots, all insects on sycamore, pear, and peach trees and on
gooseberries and currants, eggs of all mites and aphis and all insect
eggs in buildings; would repel mites and lice in chicken houses, all
insects on roses, and all crawling insects; would be "your garden pro-
tector"; and would be a sni! reclaimer: whereas the product contained
less than ."> percent of hexachlorocyclohexane and. when used as di-
rected, would not control powdery mildew on roses, Fairy Rings in
lawns, potato scab, all weevils on vegetables and flowers, all borers
and similar pests on flowers, all root maggots, all insects on sycamore,
pear, and peach trees and on gooseberries and currants, eggs of all
notes and aphis, and all insect eggs in buildings; would not repel mites
1-47576—53 2
88 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I. P. R. N. J.
and lice in chicken houses, all insects on roses, and all crawling in-
sects ; would not be "your garden protector" ; and would not be a soil
reclaimer.
2. The product was further misbranded within the meaning of the act in
that its labels did not contain a warning or caution statement which
was necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to
living man and other vertebrate animals in that the labels should
have contained but did not contain suitable warnings or cautions
against the danger of skin irritation or injury from inhalation in the
use of the product.
3. The product was further misbranded within the meaning of the act in
that, when used as directed, it would be injurious to vegetation to
which applied, since when so used on roses it would injure the foliage
thereof and when so used on certain food crops, including lima beans
and potatoes, it would injure the flavor of such crops, and in that for
these reasons the labeling accompanying the product did not contain
directions for use which were necessary and, if complied with, adequate
for protection of the public.
4. The product was adulterated within the meaning of the act in that its
strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under
which it was sold, since its labeling stated in part that it contained
5 percent of hexachlorocyclohexane, whereas the product contained
less than 5 percent of hexachlorocyclohexane.
In count 3 it was alleged that the defendant, on or about April 4, 1949, shipped
and delivered for shipment from Sumner, Wash., to Salem, Oreg., 72 ^-pint
containers, 12 1-quart containers, and 6 1-gallon containers of a product known
as "CARCO-X" and that :
1. The product was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its
labeling bore statements relative to the product and its ingredients
which were false and misleading since the labeling represented or
implied that the product contained 5 percent of hexachlorocyclohexane
and that, when used as directed, it would control all weevils on vege-
tables and flowers, all borers and similar pests on flowers, Fairy Rings
in lawns, all soil insects, all eggs of mites and aphis, and all insect
eggs in buildings ; would repel all insects on roses, all crawling insects,
all insects that lay eggs that hatch into worms or maggots, and mites
and lice in chicken houses ; would be "your garden protector" ; and
would be a soil reclaimer ; whereas the product contained less than
5 percent of hexachlorocyclohexane and, when used as directed, would
not control all weevils on vegetables and flowers, all borers and similar
pests on flowers, Fairy Rings in lawns, all soil insects, all eggs of mites
and aphis, and all insect eggs in buildings ; would not repel all insects
on roses, all crawling insects, all insects that lay eggs that hatch into
worms, or maggots, and mites and lice in chicken houses ; would not be
"your garden protector" ; and would not be a soil reclaimer.
2. The product was further misbranded within the meaning of the act in
that, when used as directed, it would be injurious to vegetation to
which applied, since when so used on roses it would injure the foliage
thereof and when so used on certain food crops, including lima beans
and potatoes, it would injure the flavor of such crops, and in that,
for these reasons, the labeling accompanying the product did not con-
tain directions for use which were necessary and, if complied with,
adequate for protection of the public.
3. The product was adulterated within the meaning of the act in that its
strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under
which it was sold, since its labeling stated, in part, that it contained
5 percent of hexachlorocyclohexane, whereas the product contained
less than 5 percent of hexachlorocyclohexane.
The defendant having entered a plea of not guilty, the case went to trial
before a jury. On June 4, 1952, the defendant was found guilty of violation
of 7 U. S. C. 135a (a) (1) as charged in count 1 and not guilty on counts 2
and 3. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and the defendant was placed
on probation for 3 years.
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 89
143. Lack of registration and misbranding of "FAZT PINE OIL DISINFECTANT
COEF 5." U. S. v. 1 55-gallon drum and 6 5-gallon containers, more or
less, of "FAZT PINE OIL DISINFECTANT COEF 5." Default decree of
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 183. I. D. No.
25190.)
The product, "FAZT PINE OIL DISINFECTANT POEF 5," was not registered
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examina-
tion of the product showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the
product did not bear an ingredient statement as required by the art.
On April 22, 1952. the United States Attorney for the District of Nebraska,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United Stales
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
1 55-gallon drum and 6 5-gallon containers, more or less, of "FAZT PINE
OIL DISINFECTANT COEF 5," at Omaha, Nebi\, alleging that the product
was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or about
January 22, 1952, by the Continental Soap Corporation, from Chicago, 111., in
violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the
name and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement
giving the names of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the
descending order of the percentage of each present in each classification, to-
gether with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
On September 22, 10.~>2, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemna-
tion and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered
to destroy the product.
144. Lack of registration and required information on labeling, adulteration,
and misbranding of "Py. Extract." U. S. v. 1 55-gallon container, more
or less, of "Py. Extract." Consent decree of condemnation and release
under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 174. I. D. No. 247<I0. t
The product, "Py. Extract," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product showed that
the label affixed to the container of the product did not bear certain information
required by the act. The product was also found to he adulterated and mis-
branded within the meaning of the act.
On April 28, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Flor-
ida, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 1 55-gallon container, more or less, of "Py. Extract," at Jacksonville, Fla.,
alleging the product was an economic poison which had been transported inter-
state, on or about January 7, 1052, by Baird & McGuire, Inc., from Holbrook,
.Mass.. in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product failed to comply with the provisions of the act
in that the label affixed to the container of the product did not bear a statement
of the net weight or measure of the contents of the container.
It was alleged that the product failed to comply with the provisions of the act
in that the label affixed to the container of the product did not bear a statement
giving the name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or person for whom
manufactured.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning of the act
in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under
which it was sold, since the invoice accompanying the product bore the statement,
"Pyrethrum Extract #20," which implied or represented the product contained
2.4 percent of pyrethrins, whereas the product contained less than 2.4 percent of
pyrethrins.
It was alleged that the product was further adulterated within the meaning of
the act in that a substance other than pyrethrum extract, to wit, dichloro diphenyl
trichloroethane (DDT) has been substituted in part for the product.
90 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I. F.R.N. J.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
in that its labeling bore the statement, "Py. Extract," which was false or mislead-
ing since the statement implied or represented that the product consisted wholly
of an extract of pyrethrum, whereas the product contained another active ingredi-
ent, to wit, dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT).
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning of
the act in that the labeling accompanying the product did not contain directions
for use which were necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection
of the public.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that its label did not
bear a warning or caution statement which was necessary, and, if complied with,
adequate for the protection of the public.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that the label
affixed to the container of the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving
the name and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement giv-
ing the names of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the
descending order of the percentage of each present in each classification, together
with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
Baird & McGuire, Inc., of Holbrook, Mass., claimed ownership of the product
and requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing it into compli-
ance with the act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On June
16, 1952, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered that the
product be released to the claimant under bond.
145. Lack of registration and misbranding of "MYSTIC FRESH-UP FOR PER-
FECT CARPET CARE." U. S. v. 119 1-gallon cans, more or less, of
"MYSTIC FRESH-UP FOR PERFECT CARPET CARE." Decree of con-
demnation and forfeiture. ( I. F. & R. No. 1S5. I. D. No. 20923. )
The product, "MYSTIC FRESH-UP FOR PERFECT CARPET CARE," was
not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
An examination of the product showed that the ingredient statement on the
labels affixed to the containers of the product did not appear on that part of
the immediate containers which is presented or displayed under customary
conditions of purchase and the term "Inert ingredients" was less prominent than
the term "Active Ingredients."
On May 7, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
119 1-gallon cans, more or less, of "MYSTIC FRESH-UP FOR PERFECT CAR-
PET CARE," at Washington, D. C, alleging that the product was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate, on or about April 15, 1952, and
April 10, 1952, by Mystic Foam Corporation, from Cleveland, Ohio, in violation
of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the ingredient statement
appearing on the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not appear
on that part of the immediate containers of the retail package which is pre-
sented or displayed under customary conditions of purchase, and the term
"Inert ingredients" was less prominent than the term "Active Ingredients."
On August 14, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and if was ordered that the product be delivered to
Gallinger Municipal Hospital for its use only, and not for sale.
1 16. Lack of registration of "FUMOL CHLORDANE 2% SOLUTION." U. S. v.
2 55-gallon drums, more or less, of "FUMOL CHLORDANE 2% SOLU-
TION." Default decree of condemnation and forfeiture. ( I. F. & R. No.
187. I. D. No. 24960.)
The product, "FUMOL CHLORDANE 2% SOLUTION." was not registered
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On May 23, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 2
55-gallon drums, more or less, of "FUMOL CHLORDANE 2% SOLUTION," at
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 91
Waterbury, Conn., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had
been transported interstate, on or about March 26, 1952, by Fumol Corporation,
from Long Island City, N. Y., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On July 23, 1952, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and
it was ordered that the product be delivered to a public institution, within
the State of Connecticut, such as a hospital or county farm, for use against flies,
ants, roaches, or similar insects.
147. Lack of registration of "FUMOL 110 INSECT SPRAY." U. S. v. 2 55-gallon
drums, more or less, of "FUMOL 110 INSECT SPRAY." Default decree
of condemnation and forfeiture. (I. F. & R. No. 188. I. D. No. 24959.)
The product, "FUMOL 110 INSECT SPRAY," was not registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On May 23, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 2
55-gallon drums, more or less, of "FUMOL 110 INSECT SPRAY," at Waterbury,
Conn., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been trans-
ported interstate, on or about March 26, 1952, by the Fumol Corporation, from
Long Island City, N. Y., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On July 24, 1952, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it
was ordered that the product be delivered to a public institution, within the
State of Connecticut, such as a hospital or county farm, for use against flies,
ants, roaches, or similar insects.
148. Lack of registration of "EXTERM-O-LITE." U. S. v. 660 packages, more
or less, each containing two "EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZERS" and
"EXTERM-O-LITE INSECTICIDE"; 50 display cards, more or less, cap-
tioned "FOR SURE PEST CONTROL EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZER";
and 50 circulars, more or less, bearing the statement "9 TIMES MORE
POWERFUL THAN DDT EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZER OF PURE
LINDANE." Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond.
( I. F. & R. No. 181. I. D. No. 24578. )
The product, "EXTERM-O-LITE," was not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On April 4, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of 660 packages, more or less, each containing two "EXTERM-O-
LITE VAPORIZERS" and "EXTERM-O-LITE INSECTICIDE" ; 50 display cards,
more or less, captioned "FOR SURE PEST CONTROL EXTERM-O-LITE
VAPORIZER" ; and 50 circulars, more or less, bearing the statement "9 TIMES
MORE POWERFUL THAN DDT EXTERM-O-LITE VAPORIZER OF PURE
LINDANE," at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the product was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate, on or about February 27, 1952,
by the Candle-Lite Chemical Company, from Miami, Fla., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
Candle-Lite Chemical Co., of Miami, Fla., claimed ownership of the product
and requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing it into com-
pliance with the act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On
April 29, 1952, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered that
the product be released to the claimant under bond.
149. Misbranding and adulteration of "PYNEEN DISINFECTANT COEFFI-
CIENT 5." U. S. v. 62 1 -gallon containers, more or less, of "PYNEEN
DISINFECTANT COEFFICIENT 5." Default decree of condemnation,
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 192. I. D. No. 24287.)
An examination of a sample of "PYNEEN DISINFECTANT COEFFICIENT 5"
showed that the product consisted of water, soap, isopropyl, alcohol, pine oil,
pine oil solvents, and chlorinated phenol. When tested, the product was found
92 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I. P. R. N.J.
to have a phenol coefficient of 2.8 instead of a phenol coefficient of 5, as was
claimed.
On June 6, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 62
1-gallon containers, more or less, of "PYNEEN DISINFECTANT COEFFICIENT
5," at Trenton, N. J., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had
been transported interstate, on or about July 10, 1951, by The Chemical Services
Company (Chemical Services of Baltimore), from Baltimore, Md., in violation
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements:
"An
ODORITE
PRODUCT
PYNEEN
DISINFECTANT
COEFFICIENT 5
* * •
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
Be sure all dirt is swept up and removed before applying dis-
infectant. For proper disinfection, surface should be thoroughly
wetted with disinfectant solution as described below :
Solution A : Use 1 part of Dis. with 100 parts water
Solution B : Use 1 part of Dis. with 200 parts water
Coefficient 5 F. D. A. against E. Typhi
AS A DISINFECTANT
For Urinals and Toilets : Clean daily with Solution A. Pour ex-
cess solution in pail down urinal drains.
For Public Places : In schools, hotels, theatres, office buildings,
etc., wash freely all floors, desks, etc., with Solution A.
Cuspidors : Clean with Solution A. Leave small amount in each
cuspidor.
Garbage Receptacles, Etc. : Wash entire surface thoroughly with
Solution A.
Telephone and Dictating Machine Mouthpieces : Wash thoroughly
with Solution A.
Kennels, Stables, Chicken Houses, Etc. : Wash all surfaces thor-
oughly with Solution A. Allow to remain for approximately 10
minutes and then mop up thoroughly with clear water.
* * #»>
borne on the labels affixed to the containers of the product were false and mis-
leading since they implied or represented that the product had a phenol co-
efficient of 5, and that the product, when used as directed, would disinfect all
articles, places, and surfaces listed in such statements and those implied by the
term "etc.," whereas the product had a phenol less than 5 and the product, when
used as directed, would not disinfect all articles, places, and surfaces listed on
its labeling or those implied by the term "etc."
It was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning of the
act in that its standard or purity fell below the professed standard or quality
as expressed on its label, since its labeling bore the statement "PYNEEN
DISINFECTANT COEFFICIENT 5," whereas the product had a phenol co-
efficient of less than 5.
On July 15, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.
150. Lack of registration of "FUCO BRAND 5% A-P 1% (All Purpose) TO-
BACCO DUST TDE-DDD-RHOTHANE"; "FUCO BRAND 3-5-0 COTTON
DUST"; and "3-5-40 COTTON DUST." U. S. v. 75 50-pound bags, more
or less of "FUCO BRAND 5% A-P 1% (All Purpose) TOBACCO DUST
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 93
TDE-DDD-RHOTHANE"; 30 50-pound bags, more or less, of "FUCO
BRAND 3-5-0 COTTON DUST"; and 4 50-pound bags, more or less, of
"3-5-40 COTTON DUST." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 198. I. D. No. 25759, 25760, and 25761.)
The products, "FUCO BRAND 5% A-P 1% (All Purpose) TOBACCO DUST
TDE-DDD-RHOTHANE," "FUCO BRAND 3-5-0 COTTON DUST," and "3-5-40
COTTON DUST," were not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act.
On July 3, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 75
50-pound bags, more or less, of "FUCO BRAND 5% A-P 1% (All Purpose)
TOBACCO DUST TDE-DDD-RHOTHANE"; 30 50-pound bags, more or less,
of "FUCO BRAND 3-5-0 COTTON DUST" ; and 4 50-pound bags, more or less,
of "3-5-40 COTTON DUST," at Valdosta, Ga., alleging that the products were
economic poisons which had been trausported interstate, on or about May 23,
1952, and May 27, 1952, by Futch Produce Co., from Live Oak, Fla., in violation
of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On August 28, 1952, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered,
and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the products.
151. Adulteration and misbranding of "FORTIFIED DISINFECTANT PINE
OIL COEF. 3 F. D. A." U. S. v. 59 1-gall.on containers, more or less, of
"FORTIFIED DISINFECTANT PINE OIL COEF. 3 F. D. A." Default
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 151.
I. D. No. 22398.)
An examination of a sample of "FORTIFIED DISINFECTANT PINE OIL
COEF. 3 F. D. A." showed that this product consisted of pine oil, soap, water,
chlorinated phenols, isopropyl alcohol, and wood naphtha. When tested, the
product was found to have a phenol coefficient of 0.4 instead of a phenol coefficient
of 3 as claimed.
On June 28, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 59
1-gallon containers, more or less, of "FORTIFIED DISINFECTANT PINE OIL
COEF. 3 F. D. A." alleging that the product was an economic poison which had
been transported interstate, on or about February 28, 1951, by Uncle Sam
Chemical Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y., in violation of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning of the act
in that the statements :
"FORTIFIED
DISINFECTANT
PINE OIL
Active Ingredients
Pine Oil ; Isoproponol
Mono chloro orthophenylphenol
Inert Ingredients
Water 10%"
implied or represented that the product was a pine oil disinfectant containing
pine oil and no other type of oil, whereas oil other than pine oil had been
substituted wholly or in part for the article.
It was alleged that the product was further adulterated within the meaning
of the act in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or
quality as expressed on the labels affixed to the containers of the product since
its labeling bore the statement "COEF. 3 F. D. A." whereas the product had a
phenol coefficient of less than 3.
It was alleged tliat the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act
in that the statements :
94 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT LI. F.R.N. J.
Coef. 3 F. D. A.
"FORTIFIED
DISINFECTANT
PINE OIL
Active Ingredients
Pine Oil ; Isoproponol
Mono chloro orthophenylphenol
Inert Ingredient
Water 10%
* * *
A pleasant, efficacious product for disinfecting and deodorizing.
Added to water in cleaning, it insures thorough sanitation and leaves
a marvelous odor of pine woods.
DIRECTIONS
General Cleaning and Disinfecting: Dilute one part of disin-
fectant with 60 parts of lukewarm scrubbing solution. Pour scrub-
bing solution on disinfectant. Excellent for washing floors, wood-
work, sinks, walls, basements, telephone booths, etc. It aids in
removing grease, dirt and odors in public places, schools, hotels,
theatres, office buildings home, etc.
CONTENTS ONE GALLON
borne on the labels affixed to the containers of the product were false and mis-
leading since the statements implied or represented that the product: (1) Con-
tained no oil other than pine oil; (2) was a fortified pine oil disinfectant; (3)
bad a net content of 1 gallon ; (4) had a phenol coefficient of 3 F. D. A. ; and (5)
when used as directed could be relied upon to disinfect floors, woodwork, sinks,
walls, basements, telephone booths, public places, schools, hotels, theaters, office
buildings, home, or other places implied by the abbreviation "etc." ; whereas, the
product: (1) Contained oil other than pine oil; (2) was not a fortified pine oil
disinfectant; (3) had a net content of less than 1 gallon; (4) had a phenol
coefficient of less than 3 F. D. A.; and (5) when used as directed could not be
relied upon to disinfect floors, woodwork, sinks, walls, basements, telephone
booths, public places, schools, hotels, theaters, office buildings, home, or other
places implied by the abbreviation "etc."
On August 13, 1951, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and
the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the product.
152. Lack of registration and required information and misbranding of "PYNOL
18-55-49." U. S. v. 2 55-gallon drums, more or less, of "PYNOL 18-55-49."
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R.
No. 152. I. D. No. 21662.)
The product, "PYNOL 18-55-49," was not registered under the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examination of the product showed
that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear a proper
statement of net weight or measure of contents of the containers. The examina-
tion further showed that the labels did not contain directions for use which were
necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public ; the
labels did not bear an ingredient statement as required by the act; and the
product was also misbranded in that the labeling bore false and misleading
information.
On July 2, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of South
Carolina, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 2 55-gallon drums, more or less, of "PYNOL 18-55-49," at Georgetown, S. C,
alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been transported
interstate, on or about September 6, 1950, by the Pynol Company, from Burlington,
Iowa, in violation of the act.
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 95
It was alleged that :
1. The product was not registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as re-
quired by section 4 of the act.
2. The product failed to comply with the act in that the labels affixed to the
containers of the product did not bear a proper statement of net weight
or measure of contents of the containers in that the labels stated the
net contents in terms of pounds, whereas the net content of ;i product
of this kind and amount is required to be stated in terms of gallons.
3. The product was misbranded in that its labeling bore a statement which
was false and misleading in that it implied or represented that the Inter-
national Paper Co., Southern Kraft Division, was the manufacturer of
the product, whereas the said company w;is not the manufacturer.
4. The product was misbranded in that the labeling accompanying the
product did not contain directions for use which were necessary and,
if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
5. The product was further misbranded in that its labeling did not bear
an ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of each active
ingredient, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients,
in the product, or an ingredient statement giving the name of each
active ingredient, together with the name of each and total percentage
of the inert ingredients, in the product.
On August 10, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
153. Lack of registration and misbranding of "SABADILLA SEED POW-
DERED"; "POWDERED SABADILLA SEED AND SULPHUR MIXED
FOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Powdered Sabadilla Seed— 33% Sulphur—
67%)"; and "POWDERED SABADILLA SEED AND SULPHUR MIXED
FOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Powdered Sabadilla Seed— 50% Sul-
phur—50%)." U. S. v. 69 1-pound cartons, more or less, of "SABADILLA
SEED POWDERED"; 89 1-pound cartons, more or less, of "POWDERED
SABADILLA SEED AND SULPHUR MIXED FOR LICE ON LIVE-
STOCK (Powdered Sabadilla Seed— 33% Sulphur— 67%)"; and 89 1-pound
cartons, more or less, of "POWDERED SABADILLA SEED AND SUL-
PHUR MIXED FOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Powdered Sabadilla Seed—
50% Sulphur — 50%)." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 153. I. D. Nos. 22179, 22180, and 22181.)
The products, "SABADILLA SEED POWDERED," "POWDERED SABA-
DILLA SEED AND SULPHUR MIXED FOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Pow-
dered Sabadilla Seed— 33% Sulphur— 67%)," and "POWDERED SABADILLA
SEED AND SULPHUR MIXED FOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Powdered
Sabadilla Seed — 50% Sulphur 50%)," were not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentieide Act, and an examination of the prod-
ucts showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the products did not
bear an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On July 9, 1951, the United States attorney for the District of North Dakota,
anting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
t« 1-pound cartons, more or less, of "SABADILLA SEED POWDERED";
89 1-pound cartons, more or less, of "POWDERED SABADILLA SEED AND
Ni'uHuK MIXED FOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK (Powdered Sabadilla Seed—
33% Sulphur— 67%)"; and 89 1-pound cartons, more or less, of "POWDERED
SABADILLA SEED AND SULPHUR MIXED FOR LICE ON LIVESTOCK
(Powdered Sabadilla Seed — 50% Sulphur — 50%)," at Fargo, N. Dak., alleging
that the products were economic poisons which had been transported interstate,
on or about July 19, 1951, by the Northern Drug Co., from Duluth, Minn., in
violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the products were misbranded within the meaning of
the act in that the labels affixed to the containers of the products did not bear
an ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of each of the active
96 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I.F. R.N.J.
ingredients, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the
products, or an ingredient statement giving the names of each of the active and
each of the inert ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each
present in each classification, together with the total percentage of the inert
ingredients, in the products.
On August 31, 1951, a decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered,
and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy the products.
154. Misbranding and adulteration of "HARCO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA
Method" and "CRYSO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method." U. S. v.
219 5-gallon cans, more or less, of "HARCO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef
5 FDA Method" and 1,404 1-gallon cans, more or less, of "CRYSO G. S. A.
Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method". Consent decree of condemnation and
release under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 204. I. D. Nos. 2U934, 24646, and
24647.)
Examinations of "HARCO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method" and
"CRYSO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method" showed that these products
consisted chiefly of water with small amounts of pine oil, soap, isopropyl
alcohol, and chlorinated phenols. When tested, two samples of "HARCO
G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method" were found to have an average phenol
coefficient of 2.6 instead of a phenol coefficient of 5 as claimed. A sample of
"CRYSO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method" was found to have a phenol
coefficient of 2.1 instead of a phenol coefficient of 5 as was claimed.
On August 12, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
219 5-gallon cans, more or less, of "HARCO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA
Method" and 1,404 1-gallon cans, more or less, of "CRYSO G. S. A. Disinfectant
Coef 5 FDA Method," at Washington, D. C, alleging that the products were
economic poisons which had been transported interstate, on or about July 12,
1952, and July 7, 1952, by the Harley Soap Company, from Philadelphia, Pa.,
in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that the "HARCO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method"
was misbranded in that the statements :
«* • •
Harco G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method
Active Ingredients. Soap Pine oil, Ortho-benzyl-parachloro-phenol
Inert Ingredients 85% Water, Isopropyl Alcohol
* * *
DIRECTIONS FOR USE OF THIS DISINFECTANT
FOR URINALS AND TOILETS— They should be cleaned daily
with a pail of water containing y.2 pint of Disinfectant to every 25
quarts of water. When the toilet room has been cleaned the pailful
of solution should be utilized by pouring it down the urinal drain
in this way deodorizing the drains & traps. TO AID IN DISIN-
FECTING of water closets, toilet bowls — clean and flush the hopper
each day with a solution of 1 part Disinfectant to 100 parts of water.
This solution should also be used for washing off toilet seats as well
as entire surface of vessel.
IN PUBLIC PLACES— Schools, hotels, theatres, stores, office build-
ings, colleges etc. — spray freely a solution of 1 part Disinfectant to
100 parts of water so that all infected areas are covered.
CUSPIDORS — Clean with solution 1 to 100 and leave a small amount
of the solution in the cuspidor to aid in killing germs and overcome
unpleasant odors.
FOR OUTDOOR CLOSETS— Garbage receptacles, stables, etc.—
wash freely with 1 part Disinfectant to 100 of water. WTash entire
surface.
FOR STABLES— Where animals are kept spray freely with a 1 to
100 dilution. Be sure all dirt is removed before spraying and that
entire infected area is sprayed.
FOR CLEANING CHICKEN COOPS, Hen houses, pigeon houses,
etc., wash up with a solution of 1 to 100.
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 97
FOR SLAUGHTER HOUSES— Wash vats, slaughter room, etc. with
solution of 1 to 100 pour clown drain to deodorize.
(NOTE) y2 pint of Disinfectant to 25 quarts of water constitutes a 1
to 100 dilution.
• * •»
borne on the labels affixed to the containers of the product were false and mis-
leading since the product had a phenol coefficient of less than 5 and when used
as directed the product would not disinfect the articles, places, or surfaces listed
on its labeling or implied by the term "etc."
It was alleged that the "HARCO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method"
was adulterated within the meaning of the act in that its strength or purity fell
below the professed standard or quality as expressed on its labeling since the
labeling bore the statement "Coef 5 FDA Method" whereas the product had a
phenol coefficient of less than 5.
It was alleged that the "CRYSO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method"
was misbranded in that the statements:
'<* * *
Cryso G S A Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method
Active Ingredients Soap pine oil, Ortho benzyl-parachloro-phenol
Inert Ingredients, 85% Water, Isopropyl Alcohol
* * *
DIRECTIONS FOR USE OF THIS DISINFECTANT
FOR URINALS AND TOILETS— They should be cleaned daily with
a pail of water containing y2 pint of Disinfectant to every 25 quarts
of water. When the toilet room has been cleaned the pailful of solu-
tion should be utilized by pouring it down the urinal drain in this
way deodorizing the drains & traps.
TO AID IN DISINFECTING of water closets, toilet bowls— Clean
and flush the hopper each day with a solution of 1 part Disinfectant
to 100 parts water. This should also be used for washing off toilet
seats as well as entire surface of vessel.
IN PUBLIC PLACES— Schools, hotels, theatres, stores, office build-
ings, colleges, etc. — spray freely a solution of 1 part Disinfectant to
100 parts of water so that all infected areas are covered.
CUSPIDORS — Clean with solution 1 to 100 and leave a small amount
of the solution in the cuspidor to aid in killing germs and overcome
unpleasant odors.
FOR OUTDOOR CLOSETS— Garbage receptacles, stables, etc.—
wash freely with 1 part of Disinfectant to 100 of water. Wash
entire surface.
FOR STABLES — Where animals are kept spray freely with a 1 to
100 dilution. Be sure all dirt is removed before spraying and that
entire infected area is sprayed.
FOR CLEANING CHICKEN COOPS, hen houses, pigeon houses
etc. — wash up with a solution of 1 to 100.
FOR SLAUGHTER HOUSES— Wash vats, slaughter room, etc. with
solution of 1 to 100, pour down drain to deodorize.
(Note) y2 pint of Disinfectant to 25 quarts of water constitutes a
1 to 100 dilution.
* * *"
borne on the labels affixed to the containers of the product were false and mis-
leading since the product had a phenol coefficient of less than 5 and, when used
as directed, the product would not disinfect the articles, places, or surfaces
listed on its labeling or implied by the term "etc."
It was alleged that the "CRYSO G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA Method"
was adulterated within the meaning of the act in that its strength or purity
fell below the professed standard or quality as expressed on its labeling since
the product had a phenol coefficient of less than 5.
The Harley Soap Company, of Philadelphia, Pa., claimed ownership of the
products and requested their release under bond for the purpose of bringing
them into compliance with the act, and consented to the entry of a condemna-
tion decree. On September 24, 1952, a decree of condemnation was entered, and
it was ordered that the products be released to the claimant under bond.
98 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I. F. R.N.J.
155. Lack of registration and misbranding of "Cedar-Wall." U. S. v. 351 5-pound
containers, 699 10-pound containers, and 48 50-pound containers, more or
less, of "Cedar Wall." Consent decree of condemnation and release under
bond. (I. F. &R.No. 155. I. D. No. 22586.)
The product, "Cedar-Wall," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examination of the product showed
that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient
statement as required by the act.
On July 18, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, hied in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of 351 5-pound containers, 699 10-pound containers, and 4S 50-pound
containers, more or less, of "Cedar-Wall," at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that
the product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on
or about April 27, 1951, by Edward L. Milieu Company, from Cambridge, Mass.,
in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the labels affixed to the
containers of the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name
and percentage of each active ingredient, together with the total percentage
of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement giving the
name of each active ingredient, together with the name of each and total per-
centage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
Harry Landers, doing business as Pacific Trading Company, and Jerome Paul,
Los Angeles, Calif., claimed ownership of the product and requested its release
under bond for the purpose of removing all economic poison claims from the
labeling of the seized product, and consented to the entry of a condemnation
decree. On August 10, 1951, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was
ordered that the product be released to the claimants under bond.
156. Lack of required information on label, misbranding, and adulteration of
"BY-U PINE OIL DISINFECTANT Coefficient: 5 F. D. A." U. S. v. 7
55-gallon drums, more or less, of "BY-U PINE OIL DISINFECTANT
Coefficient 5 F. D. A." Consent decree of condemnation and release under
bond. (I. F. & R. No. 156. I. D. No. 21655)
An examination of a sample of "BY-U PINE OIL DISINFECTANT Coefficient :
5 F. D. A." showed that this product consisted of pine oil, soap, water, isopropyl
alcohol, and mineral oil. When tested, the product was found to have a phenol
coefficient of 3.5 instead of a phenol coefficient of 5 as claimed.
On August 15, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and
couhscation of 7 55-gallon drums, more or less, of "BY-U PINE OIL DISIN-
FECTANT Coefficient : 5 F. D. A." at Savannah, Ga., alleging that the product
was an economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or about
February 27, 1951, by Bayou Industries, Inc., from Arabi, La., in violation of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the statements :
BY-U
PINE OIL DISINFECTANT
Active Ingredients : Steam Distilled Pine Oil and Soap
Inert Ingredients : Water, Not over 10%
were false or misleading since they represented that the only oil contained in the
product was pine oil and that the product conformed to the trade standard for
a pine oil disinfectant, whereas the product contained oil other than pine oil,
and the product did not conform to the trade standard for a pine oil disinfectant.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that these statements :
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 99
BY-U
PINE OIL DISINFECTANT
* * *
Coefficient : 5 F. D. A.
DIRECTIONS for use as a Preventative Measure and Aid in Disin-
fecting AGAINST B. TYPHOSUS
NOTE: — Better results are obtained by adding water to the proper
amount of pine oil disinfectant. Disinfectant Solution should cover
all infected surfaces after sweeping or otherwise removing all dirt
or refuse.
FOR GENERAL CLEANING AND DISINFECTING :— Use 1 part
disinfectant to 100 parts of water. Wash floors, and use for
deodorizing sinks, refrigerators, etc.
TOILET ROOMS:— Use 1 part disinfectant to 100 parts of water.
Wash seats, bathtub, bowls, urinals, sinks, floors, and baseboards
at least twice a day.
PUBLIC PLACES :— Wash with a solution of 1 part disinfectant
to 100 parts of water, so as to cover all possible areas of infection.
For schools, institutions, public buildings, etc.
GARBAGE CANS, REFUSE PAILS, CELLARS, OUTDOOR
CLOSETS: — Thoroughly saturate by sprinking or spraying with
solution of 1 part disinfectant to 90 parts of water. This will aid
in repelling and preventing breeding of flies and certain other insect
pests, and check putrefactive action. Repeat treatment as often
as necessary.
CHICKEN COOPS, YARDS. PENS, and STABLES :— Clean free
from all dirt and refuse, then wash thoroughly with a solution of
1 part disinfectant to 100 parts of water.
PUBLIC CONVEYANCES :— Scrub floors, wipe seats, wash wood-
work, baths, toilets, with a solution of 1 part disinfectant to 100
parts of water. Use for cleaning pantries and passageways.
* * *>>
borne on the labels affixed to the containers of the product wei-e false and
misleading as the product had a phenol coefficient of less than 5 and, when used
as directed, the product would not disinfect floors, sinks, refrigerators ; toilet
seats, bathtubs, bowls, urinals, floors, and baseboards in toilet rooms; areas
of infection in schools, institutions, and public buildings; garbage cans, refuse
pails, cellars, outdoor closets, chicken coops, yards, pens, and stables ; floors,
seats, woodwork, baths, toilets, pantries, and passageways in public conveyances;
and all articles, places, and surfaces implied by the term "etc."
It was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning of the
act in that oils other than pine oil bad been substituted wholly, or in part, for
the product.
It was alleged that the product was further adulterated within the meaning
of the act in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or
quality as expressed on its labeling since its labeling bore the statement "Coeffi-
cient: 5 F. D. A." whereas the product had a phenol coefficient of less than 5.
Bayou Industries, Inc., of Arahi, La., claimed ownership of the product and
requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing it into compliance
with the act, and consented to the entry of a condemnation decree. On October
17. 1951, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered that the
product be released to the claimant Tinder bond.
157. Lack of registration and misbranding of "SOLUTION DETERGICIDE
CONCENTRATED." U. S. v. 72 8-ounce bottles and 144 16-ounce bottles,
more or less, of "SOLUTION DETERGICIDE CONCENTRATED." De-
fault decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No.
208. I. D. No. 25673.)
The product, "SOLUTION DETERGICIDE CONCENTRATED," was not reg-
istered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An
examination of the product showed that the labels affixed to the containers of
100 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I. F.R.N. J.
the product did not bear an ingredient statement nor a warning or caution
statement as required by the act. The product was also found to be misbranded
within the meaning of the act.
The United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, acting upon a
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States District Court
a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 72 8-ounce bottles
and 144 16-ounce bottles, more or less, of "SOLUTION DETERGICIDE CON-
CENTRATED," at Summit, N. J., alleging that the product was an economic
poison which had been transported interstate, on or about July 21, 1952, by the
United States Catheter & Instrument Corporation, from Glens Falls, N. Y., in
violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the labels affixed to the
containers of the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name
and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total per-
centage of inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement giving the
names of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the descending
order of the percentage of each present in each classification, together with the
total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labels did not bear a warning or caution statement which
was necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man
and other vertebrate animals.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that the labeling
was false and misleading as it implied or represented that the prod\ict, when
used as directed, would sterilize and disinfect catheters and diagnostic and
surgical instruments and would be a versatile germicide for office and hospital
use, whereas the product, when used as directed, would not sterilize or disinfect
catheters and diagnostic and surgical instruments and it would not be a versatile
germicide for office or hospital use.
On November 7, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
158. Misbranding of "CO-OP SODIUM FLUORIDE." U. S. v. 644 1-pound con-
tainers, more or less, of "CO-OP SODIUM FLUORIDE." Consent decree
of condemnation and release under bond. (I. F. & R. No. 158. I. D. Nos.
22075 and 24007.)
Examinations of two samples of the product, "CO-OP SODIUM FLUORIDE,"
showed net weight shortages of 10 percent and 14 percent, respectively, below the
net weight claimed on the labeling of the product.
On July 26, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis-
trict Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 644
1-pound containers, more or less, of "CO-OP SODIUM FLUORIDE," at Indian-
apolis, Ind., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been
transported interstate, on or about March 1, 1951, and April 20, 1951, by the
Hessler Laboratories, Inc., from Orient, Ohio, in violation of the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "CO-OP
SODIUM FLUORIDE net contents 1 lb.," borne on the labels affixed to the con-
tainers of the product, was false or misleading and served to deceive and mislead
purchasers, since the statement represented that the net weight of the containers
was not less than 1 pound, whereas the net weight of the containers was less
than 1 pound.
The Hessler Laboratories, Inc., Orient, Ohio, claimed ownership of tlie product
and requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing it into compli-
ance with the act, and consented to the entering of a condemnation decree. On
September 24, 1951, a decree of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered
that the product be released to the claimant under bond.
159. Lack of registration and required information and misbranding of "RID-
O-RAT" and "RID-O-ROACH." U. S. v. 11 1-pound containers, more or
less, of "RID-O-RAT" and 11 1 -pound containers, more or less, of "RID-
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 101
O-ROACH." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
( I. F. & R. No. 159. I. D. Nos. 24107 and 24108. )
The products, "RID-O-RAT" and "RID-O-ROACH," were not registered under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Examinations of the
products showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the products did not
bear statements of net weight or measure of contents of the containers, nor
ingredient statements, and the labeling accompanying the products did not con-
tain directions for use as required by the act.
On August 9, 1951, the United* States Attorney for the District of New
Hampshire, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 11
1-pound containers, more or less, of "RID-O-RAT" and 11 1-pound containers
more or less, of "RID-O-ROACH," at Berlin, N. H., alleging that the products
were economic poisons which had been transported interstate, on or about De-
cember 15, 1950, by H. L. Hinton, doing business as Acme Exterminating Com-
pany, from Portland, Maine, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It wTas alleged that the products failed to comply with the act in that the
labels affixed to the containers of the products did not bear a statement of net
weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
It was alleged that the products were misbranded within the meaning of
the act in that the labels affixed to the containers of the products did not bear
ingredient statements giving the name and percentage of each of the active in-
gredients, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the
products, or ingredient statements giving the names of each of the active and
each of the inert ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each
present in each classification, together with the total percentage of the inert
ingredients, in the products.
It was alleged that the products were further misbranded in that the labeling
accompanying the products did not contain directions for use which were neces-
sary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
On October 22, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it w7as ordered that the products be destroyed.
160. Lack of registration of "RID-O-RAT" and "RID-O-ROACH" and lack of
registration and misbranding of "KILLS MOTHS MOSQUITOES FLIES
BEDBUGS ANTS and Other Insects." U. S. v. 11 1-pound containers,
more or less, of "RID-O-RAT," 11 1-pound containers of "RID-O-ROACH,"
and 5 1-gallon containers, more or less, of "KILLS MOTHS MOSQUITOES
FLIES BEDBUGS ANTS and Other Insects." Default decree of condem-
nation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 160. I. D. Nos. 24109,
24110,24111.)
The products, "RID-O-RAT," "RID-O-ROACH," and "KILLS MOTHS MOS-
QUITOES FLIES BEDBUGS ANTS and Other Insects," were not registered
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and an examina-
tion of the product, "KILLS MOTHS MOSQUITOES FLIES BEDBUGS ANTS
and Other Insects," showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the
product did not bear an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On August 9, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of New Hamp-
shire, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District
Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 11 1-pound
containers, more or less, of "RID-O-RAT," 11 1-pound containers, more or less,
of "RID-O-ROACH," and 5 1-gallon containers, more or less, of "KILLS MOTHS
MOSQUITOES FLIES BEDBUGS ANTS and Other Insects," at Berlin, N. H.,
alleging that the products were economic poisons which had been transported
interstate, on or about March 22, 1951, by H. L. Hinton, doing business as Acme
Exterminating Co., from Portland, Maine, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the products were not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product, "KILLS MOTHS MOSQUITOES FLIES BED-
BUGS ANTS and Other Insects," was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear an
ingredient statement giving the name and percentage of each of the active
102 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [I.F. R.N.J.
ingredients, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the
product, or an ingredient statement giving the names of each of the active and
each of the inert ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each
present in each classification, together with the total percentage of the inert
ingredients, in the product.
On October 22, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the products.
161. Lack of required information on labels and misbranding of 'TINE OIL
DISINFECTANT" labeled as "Cleaning Compound." U. S. v. 1 55-gallon
container, 1 30-gallon container, and 12 5-gallon containers, more or less,
of "PINE OIL DISINFECTANT" labeled as "Cleaning Compound." (I. F.
& R. No. 161. I. D. No. 21676. )
An examination of the product, "PINE OIL DISINFECTANT" labeled as
"Cleaning Compound," showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the
product did not bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the content of
the containers, nor an ingredient statement, nor adequate directions for use, as
required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On August 31, 1951, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Gteorgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 1 55-gallon container, 1 30-gallon container, and 12 5-gallon containers, more
or less, of "PINE OIL DISINFECTANT" labeled as "Cleaning Compound," at
Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been
transported interstate, on or about June 11, 1951, by Bayou Industries, Inc., from
New Orleans, La., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not
bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the containers.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed to
the containers of the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the
name and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement
giving the names of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the
descending order of the percentage of each present in each classification, together
with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded in that the labeling
accompanying the product did not contain directions for use which were necessary
and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
On October 2, 1951, no claimant having appeared, a default decree of con-
demnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be
destroyed.
162. Lack of registration and required information on label and misbranding of
"Insect-O-Lite Vaporizer with Insectane." U. S. v. 44 cartons, more or
less, of "Insect-O-Lite Vaporizer with Insectane." Default decree of con-
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 206. I. D. No.
25967.)
The product, "Insect-O-Lite Vaporizer with Insectane," was not registered un-
der the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of
the product showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did
not bear a statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the con-
tainers nor an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On August 5, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 44 cartons, more or less, of "Insect-O-Lite Vaporizer with Insectane," at
Indianapolis, Ind., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had
been transported interstate, on or about July 15, 1952, by Insect-O-Lite Co., Inc.,
from Cincinnati, Ohio, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of Agri-
culture as required by section 4 of the act.
It \was alleged that the product failed to comply with the act in that the out-
side container of the retail package of the product did not bear a statement of
the net weight or measure of the contents of the container.
134-169] NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 103
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the label affixed to
the outside container of the retail package of the product did not bear an ingredi-
ent statement giving the name and percentage of each of the active ingredients,
together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or
an ingredient statement giving the names of each of the active and each of the
inert ingredients in the descending order of the percentage of each present in
each classification, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in
the product.
On November 5, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.
163. Lack of registration and required information on label and misbranding of
"CREOSAN (DISINFECTANT)." U. S. v. 1 drum containing 55-gallons,
more or less, of "CREOSAN (DISINFECTANT)." Default decree of con-
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 211. I. D. No.
25S08.)
The product, "CREOSAN (DISINFECTANT)," was not registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the
product showed that the label affixed to the container of the product did not bear
a statement of the net weight or measure of the contents of the container, nor
an ingredient statement as required by the act.
On Octoher 2, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Alabama,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of
1 drum containing 55-gallons, more or less, of "CREOSAN (DISINFECTANT),"
at Geneva, Ala., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had
been transported interstate, on or about April 30, 1952, by Harrison Chemical
Company, from Marianna, Fla., in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product failed to comply with the act in that the label
affixed to the container of the product did not bear a statement of the net weight
or measure of the contents of the container.
It was alleged that the product was misbi-anded in that the labels affixed to
the container of the product did not bear an ingredient statement giving the
name and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total
percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement
giving the names of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in the
descending order of the percentage of each present in each classification, together
with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
On November 3, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to destroy
the product.
164. Misbranding of "COLORADO .44 BRAND 25% DDT EMULSION." U. S. v.
1 drum containing 20 gallons, more or less, of "COLORADO .44 BRAND
25% DDT EMULSION." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
destruction. ( I. F. & R. No. 1(>4. I. D. No. 20S66. )
An examination of the product, "COLORADO .44 BRAND 25% DDT
EMULSION," showed that this product, when used as directed or in accordance
with commonly recognized practice, would be injurious to vegetation, other than
weeds, to which it was applied.
On October IS, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of Kansas,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 1
drum containing 20 sallons, more or less, of "COLORADO .44 BRAND 25%
DDT EMULSION," at Scott City, Kans., alleging that the product was an
economic poison which had been transported interstate, on or about April 25,
1951, by the Chemical Corporation of Colorado, from Denver, Colo., in violation
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that the product, when used as directed or in accordance with commonly
recognized practice, would be injurious to vegetation, other than weeds, to which
it was applied.
104 INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT [LP. R.N.J.
On February 4, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
165. Lack of registration and misbranding of "Stantox 2,4-D Dust." U. S. v. 165
75-pound sacks, more or less, of "Stantox 2,4-D Dust." Default decree of
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. F. & R. No. 165. I. D. No.
23511.)
The product, "Stantox 2,4-D Dust," was not registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An examination of the product
showed that the labels affixed to the containers of the product did not bear
a warning or caution statement which was necessary and. if complied with,
adequate to prevent injury to living man and other vertebrate animals.
On October 22, 1951, the United States Attorney for the District of North
Dakota, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United
States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation
of 165 75-pound sacks, more or less, of "Stantox 2,4-D Dust," at Larimore,
N. Dak., alleging that the product was an economic poison which had been
transported interstate, on or about June 4, 1949, and June 8, 1949, by Standard
Agricultural Chemicals, Inc., from Tulelake, Calif., and Portland, Oreg., re-
spectively, in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the labels affixed to the
containers of the product did not contain a warning or caution statement which
was necessary and, if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man
and other vertebrate animals.
On June 17, 1952, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.
166. Misbranding of "Fli-Pel" and claims made for product differed in substance
from those made in connection with its registration. U. S. v. Lee L.
Ratner and United Enterprises, Inc. Plea of guilty by the corporation
and plea of nolo contendere by the individual. Fines of $75 against the
corporation and $25 against the individual. (I. F. & R. No. 173. I. D. No.
24032.)
The product, "Fli-Pel," was in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act in that the claims made for the product differed from
those made in connection with its registration, and the product was misbranded
in that the claims made for it were false and misleading.
On May 22, 1952, the United States District Attorney for the Northern Dis-
trict of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
in the United States District Court an information against Lee L. Ratner and
United Enterprises, Inc., alleging the interstate shipment, on or about July
17, 1951, from Chicago, 111., to Indianapolis, Ind., of an economic poison, known
as "Fli-Pel," in violation of the act.
In count 1 it was alleged that the claims made for the product differed
in substance from those made in connection with its registration.
In count 2 it was alleged that the product was misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that its labeling bore the statements :
"KEEP YOUR HOME— SHOP— BARN
FREE OF FLIES
ALL SEASON LONG
HOW FLI-PEL WORKS :
FLI-PEL is a residual fly spray — a powder combined with
a liquid. SHAKE WELL and after FLI-rEL is sprayed onto
the walls, light fixtures, etc., as directed, the liquid evaporates,
leaving a light, almost invisible coating of powder. When the
fly or mosquito lands on this, it dies within a few seconds.
FLI-PEL IS GOOD FOR ALL TYPES OF INSECTS :
However, FLI-PEL has been especially made to keep homes,
shops, stores, restaurants, hotels and barns FLY-FREE.
134-169] NOTICES OP JUDGMENT 105
FLI-PEL is not only extremely effective against flies, mos-
quitoes, and other flying insects but it is relatively safe to use
around all farm and domestic animals and humans, as it is
not a poison nor does it contain any DDT.
PREVENT DISEASE, FILTH and DISCOMFORT : HELP FIGHT
POLIO :
Scientists have known for years that flies carry dangerous dis-
eases such as typhoid fever and dysentery — NOW scientists
believe that the common fly transmits the dreaded POLIO
VIRUS. PROTECT YOUR FAMILY. HELP FIGHT POLIO
by controlling flies: MOSQUITOES carry such dreaded and
fatal diseases as malaria and other fevers. PROTECT YOUR
FAMILY AGAINST FLIES and MOSQUITOES with FLI-PEL.
FLI-PEL is Guaranteed to Rid Your Property of Flies and
Mosquitoes— and Keep It That Way All Season — or Your Money
Back:
* * *»
which were false or misleading since such statements implied or represented
that the product: (1) Was not a poison and could be relatively safe to use
around all farm and domestic animals and humans; (2) when used as directed,
would keep homes, shops, stores, restaurants, hotels, and barns fly-free; (3)
when used as directed, would keep one's home, shop, and barn free of flies all
season long; (4) when used as directed, would rid one's property of flies and
mosquitoes and keep it that way all seasons; (5) would be good for all types
of insects and extremely effective against certain specified insects and other
flying insects; (6) would protect one's family against flies and mosquitoes or
prevent disease, filth, and discomfort; and (7) would destroy, within a few
seconds, flies and mosquitoes which land on sprayed surfaces, whereas the
product: (1) Was a poison and would not be relatively safe to use around all
farm and domestic animals and humans; (2) when used as directed, would not
keep homes, shops, stores, restaurants, hotels, and barns fly-free; (3) when
used as directed, would not keep one's home, shop, and barn free of flies all
season long; (4) when used as directed, would not rid one's property of flies
and mosquitoes and keep it that way all season; (5) would not be good for all
types of insects or extremely effective against all insects implied by the phrase
"other flying insects"; (6) would not protect one's family against flies and
mosquitoes or prevent disease, filth, and discomfort; and (7) would not destroy,
within a few seconds, flies and mosquitoes which land on sprayed surfaces.
On December 17, 1952, a plea of nolo contendere was made by Lee L. Ratner,
and a plea of guilty was made by United Enterprises, Inc., whereupon the court
imposed a fine of $25 against the individual and $75 against the corporation.
167. Lack of registration and misbranding and adulteration of "NO-ODOR DIS-
INFECTANT F. D. A. PHENOL COEFFICIENT 6." U. S. v. George H.
Turner, doing business as Universal Chemical Company. Plea of guilty.
Fine $25. (I. F. &R. No. 180. I. D. No. 22479. )
The product, "NO-ODOR DISINFECTANT F. D. A. PHENOL COEFFICIENT
6," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act. Examinations of two samples of the product showed that it contained
1.63 percent and 0.86 percent, respectively, of alkyl (C8Hi7 to Ci8Hs7) dimethyl
benzyl ammonium chloride, and that the product had a phenol coefficient of
0.8 instead of a phenol coefficient of 6 as claimed.
On October 14, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Massa-
chusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court an information against George H. Turner, doing
business as Universal Chemical Company alleging shipment in interstate com-
merce, on or about September 22, 1951, from Boston, Mass., to Washington, D. C,
of an economic poison known as "NO-ODOR DISINFECTANT F. D. A. PHENOL
COEFFICIENT 6," in violation of the act.
In count 1 it was alleged that the product had not been registered with the
Secretary of Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
In count 2 it was alleged :
1. That the product was misbranded within the meaning of the act in that
its labeling bore the statements :
106 insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act [i. f.r.n. j.
"phenol coefficient 6
* * *
Active Ingredients: 3.0%
Alkyldiniethylbenzyl Ammonium
Chlorides
Inert Ingredients : 97.0%
Water
* * *>>
which implied that the product contained 3 percent of alkyl (GUn to Ci8H37)
dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride and not more than 97 percent inert ingredi-
ents and that the product had a phenol coefficient of not less than 6, whereas
the product contained less than 3 percent of alkyl (CsHn to Ci8H37) dimethyl
benzyl ammonium chloride and more than 97 percent of inert ingredients, and
it had a phenol coefficient of less than 6.
2. That the product was further misbranded within the meaning of the
act in that its accompanying labeling did not contain directions for
use which were necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the
protection of the public. It was alleged further that the product was
misbranded within the meaning of the act in that its labeling did not
bear a warning or caution statement which was necessary and, if
complied with, adequate to prevent injury to living man and other
vertebrate animals.
In count 3 it was alleged that the product was adulterated within the meaning
of the act in that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or
quality as expressed on its labeling since its labeling bore the statements :
"PHENOL COEFFICIENT 6
* * *
Active Ingredients : 3.0%
Alkyldiniethylbenzyl Ammonium
Chlorides
Inert Ingredients: 97.0%
Water
* * *"
whereas the phenol coefficient of the product was less than 6 and the product
contained less than 3 percent of alkyl (CSH17 to C1RHS7) dimethyl benzyl
ammonium chloride and more than 97 percent of inert ingredients.
On December 1, 1952, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, and the court
imposed a total fine of $25.
168. Lack of registration of "Lin-Air." U. S. v. 23, more or less, Lindane Vaporiz-
ing Units called "Lin-Air." Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
and destruction. ( I. F. & R. No. 216. I. D. No. 26262. )
The product, "Lin-Air," was not registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
On November 21, 1952, the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the United States
District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and confiscation of 23,
more or less, Lindane Vaporizing Units called "Lin-Air," at Yuma. Ariz., alleg-
ing that the product was an economic poison which had been delivered for
interstate transportation, on or about October 11, 1952, by Lin-Air of California,
from Gordon Wells, Calif., in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
On^January 16, 1953, no claimant having appeared, a decree of condemnation
and forfeiture was entered, and the United States Marshal was ordered to
destroy the product.
169. Lack of registration and misbranding of "BROWN'S SUPERCEDAR KEN-
NEL BEDDING." U. S. v. 1,199 5-pound bags and 1,000 25-pound bags,
more or less, of "BROWN'S SUPERCEDAR KENNEL BEDDING."
134-169]
NOTICES OF JUDGMENT
107
Consent decree of condemnation and release under bond. (I. P. & R. No.
207. I. D. No. 25768.)
The product, "BROWN'S SUPERCEDAR KENNEL BEDDING." was not
registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An
examination of the product showed that the labels affixed to the containers of
the product did not bear an ingredient statement nor directions for use which
were necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the protection of the public.
On September 5, 1952, the United States Attorney for the Northern District
of Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
United States District Court a libel praying seizure for condemnation and con-
fiscation of 1,199 5-pound bags and 1,000 25-pound bags, more or less of
"BROWN'S SUPERCEDAR KENNEL BEDDING," at Atlanta, Ga., alleging
that the product was an economic poison which had been transported interstate,
on or about July 22, 1952, by George C. Brown & Company, Inc., from Greensboro,
N. C, in violation of the act.
It was alleged that the product was not registered with the Secretary of
Agriculture as required by section 4 of the act.
It was alleged that the product was misbranded in that the labels affixed
to the 25-pound bags did not bear an ingredient statement giving the name
and percentage of each of the active ingredients, together with the total per-
centage of the inert ingredients, in the product, or an ingredient statement
giving the names of each of the active and each of the inert ingredients in
the descending order of the percentage of each present in each classification,
together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients, in the product.
It was alleged that the product was further misbranded within the meaning
of the act in that the labeling accompanying the product did not contain direc-
tions for use which were necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the
protection of the public.
George C. Brown & Company, Inc., of Greensboro, N. C, claimed ownership
of the product, requested its release under bond for the purpose of bringing
the product into compliance with the act, and consented to the entry of a
condemnation decree. On October 14, 1952, a decree of condemnation was
entered, and it was ordered that the product be released to the claimant under
bond.
INDEX TO NOTICES OF JUDGMENT 134-169
N. J. No.
Arab-U-Do-It Concentrate Termite
Control :
Federal Chemical Co., Inc 134
Better Moth Rings :
Better Brushes, Inc 139
Brown's Supercedar Kennel Bed-
ding:
George C. Brown & Co., Inc 169
By-U Pine Oil Disinfectant Coeffi-
cient : 5 F. D. A. :
Bayou Industries, Inc 156
Carco-X :
N. F. Rea 142
Getzum Products 142
Cedar-Lux :
Cedar-Lux Products Co., Inc__ 138
Cedar-Lux :
Cedar-Lux Products Co., Inc__ 140
Cedar-Wall :
Edward L. Millen Co 155
Harry Landers 155
Pacific Trading Co 155
Jerome Paul 155
Colorado .44 Brand 25% DDT Emul-
sion :
Chemical Corporation of Colo-
rado 164
N. J. No.
Co-op Sodium Fluoride:
Hessler Laboratories, Inc 158
Creosan (Disinfectant) :
Harrison Chemical Co 163
Extermo-O-Lite :
Caudle-Lite Chemical Co 141
Extermo-O-Lite :
Candle-Lite Chemical Co 148
Fazt Pine Oil Disinfectant Coef. 5 :
Continental Soap Corporation- 143
Fli-Pel :
Lee L. Ratner 166
United Enterprises, Inc 166
Fortified Disinfectant Pine Oil
Coef. 3 F. D. A. :
Uncle Sam Chemical Co., Inc 151
Fuco-Brand 5% A-P 1% (All Pur-
pose) Tobacco Dust TDE-DDD-
Rhothane ; Fuco Brand 3-5-0 Cot-
ton Dust; and 3-5-40 Cotton
Dust:
Futch Produce Co 150
Fumol Chlordane 2% Solution :
Fumol Corporation 146
Fumol 110 Insect Spray :
Fumol Corporation u 147
108
INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT
N. J. No.
Glamorene the Professional Carpet
Cleaner :
The Slade Co., Inc 137
Gulco Cleaner Polisher With Magic
Paramecium :
Gulco Chemical Co., Inc 136
Harco G. S. A. Disinfectant Coef 5
FDA Method ; and CRYSO G. S.
A. Disinfectant Coef 5 FDA
Method :
Harley Soap Co 154
Insect-O-Lite Vaporizer with In-
Insect-O-Lite Co., Inc 162
Lin-Air :
Lin-Air of California 168
Mystic Fresh-up for Perfect Carpet
Care:
Mystic Foam Corporation 145
No-Odor Disinfectant F. D. A.
Phenol Coefficient 6 :
Universal Chemical Co 135
No-Odor Disinfectant F. D. A.
Phenol Coefficient 6:
George H. Turner 167
Universal Chemical Co 167
Pine Oil Disinfectant labeled as
Cleaning Compound :
Bayou Industries, Inc 161
N. J. No.
Py. Extract :
Baird & McGuire, Inc 144
Pyneen Disinfectant Coefficient 5 :
The Chemical Services Co 149
Pynol 18-55-49 :
Pynol Co 152
Rid-O-Rat ; and Rid-O-Roach :
H. L. Hinton 159
Acme Exterminating Co 159
Rid-O-Rat ; Rid-O-Roach ; and
Kills Moths Mosquitoes Flies
Bedbugs Ants and Other Insects:
H. L. Hinton 160
Acme Exterminating Co 160
Sabadilla Seed Powdered ; Pow-
dered Sabadilla Seed and Sulphur
Mixed for Lice on Livestock
(Powdered Sabadilla Seed— 33%
Sulphur — 67%) ; and Powdered
Sabadilla Seed and Sulphur
Mixed for Lice on Livestock
(Powdered Sabadilla Seed— 50%
Sulphur— 50%) :
Northern Drug Co 153
Solution Detergicide Concentrated :
United States Catheter & In-
strument Corporation 157
Stantox 2,4-D Dust :
Standard Agricultural Chemi-
cals, Inc 165
If. »- eOVERHMeWT PRINTING OFFICE' I9B3
WW.™ 0F FLORIDA
3 1262 08157 0276
i;
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11