Page images
PDF
EPUB

50 Cents For Scabies on Legs and Feet of Chickens, Turkeys and Pet Birds. A combined treatment consisting of an antiseptic soap for preparing a wash, and an ointment. Prepared under the Direction of Mr. Gilbert G. Rosine, B. Sc., Consulting Chemist, and Head of Laboratory, of The W. R. Talbott Chemical Co. Manufactured by The W. R. Talbott Chemical Co. Inc. Sandusky, Ohio." Analysis of a specimen of the article in the United States Department of Agriculture showed that it consisted partially of an inert substance, namely, water, which does not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects. Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information in that it was an insecticide, and that it consisted partially of an inert substance, to wit, water, which does not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and neither the name and percentage amount of said inert ingredient nor the names and percentage amounts of each and every ingredient of the insecticide having insecticidal properties and the total percentage of inert ingredients present were stated on the label. The cause coming on for trial on November 28, 1913, the defendant, The W. R. Talbott Chemical Co., entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.

B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 28, 1914.

82. Adulteration and misbranding of "Rexo Dip." U. S. v. The Tropical Oil Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25 and costs. I. & F. No. 182. Dom. No. 7014.

On November 24, 1913, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, acting upon the report of the Secretary of Agriculture, filed information in the District Court of the United States for said district against The Tropical Oil Co., Cleveland, Ohio, a corporation, alleging the shipment and delivery for shipment, on February 22, 1912, from Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, to Grand Junction, in the State of Colorado, of a quantity of a certain article called "Rexo Dip," which was adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The article was labeled and branded as follows: "Rexo Dip. Non-Poisonous. A Perfect Dip and Disinfectant for Horses, Cattle, Sheep, Hogs, Goats, Poultry and Household Use. Manufactured by Rexo Disinfectant Co. Cleveland, Ohio, U. S. A. Rexo Dip Will Positively Kill All Nits, Fleas, Lice, Vermin and Parasites of every Description. A sample of this product has been submitted to the Department of Agriculture for examination. We guarantee the contents of this package to be of the same composition as the sample submitted to the Department, and that when diluted according to the directions printed hereon for the treatment of sheep scab it will give a dipping fluid of the composition required of a coal-tar creosote dip by the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture governing sheep scab. Directions for Using Rexo. Scab. Use Rexo in 1 part Cholera. Rexo will pre

*

Sheep.
Swine.

Rexo to 73 parts water. vent cholera. Surroundings must be made sanitary, they must be thoroughly disinfected with Rexo. Add 1 part Rexo to 400 parts water in their food. #

Analysis of specimens of the article in the United States Department of Agriculture showed that it was not of the same composition as that of a sample submitted by the manufacturer thereof to the United States Department of Agriculture for approval for official dipping of sheep, and that when diluted in the proportion of 1 part to 73 parts water it would not give a dipping fluid of the composition required of a coal-tar creosote dip by the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture governing sheep scab; that the article was poisonous; that it consisted partially of an inert substance, water, which does not prevent,

66

destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi; that the article would not kill certain species of vermin and parasites infecting domestic animals; and that the article would not prevent cholera in swine when prepared and applied according to the directions therefor on the label. Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information in that it was an insecticide other than Paris green and lead arsenate and that its strength or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold, in this, that the label on the package containing the insecticide bore statements to the effect that a sample had been submitted to the Department of Agriculture for examination and that the contents of the package were guaranteed to be of the same composition as the sample submitted to the Department, and that when diluted in the proportion of 1 part to 73 parts water it would give a dipping fluid of the composition required of a coal-tar creosote dip by the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture governing sheep scab; whereas, in fact and in truth, the contents of the package were not the same composition as that of the sample submitted to the United States Department of Agriculture, and when diluted in the proportion of 1 part to 73 parts water would not give a dipping fluid of the composition required of a coal-tar creosote dip by the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture governing sheep scab. Misbranding of the article was alleged in that it was an insecticide, and (1) that the package or label thereof bore statements regarding the article which were false and misleading, and (2) that it was labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser thereof, (a) in this, that the label on the package containing the insecticide bore the statement, NonPoisonous," whereas, in fact and in truth, the article was poisonous; (b) in this, that the label on the package containing the insecticide bore statements to the effect that a sample had been submitted to the Department of Agriculture for examination, and that the contents of the package were guaranteed to be of the same composition as the sample submitted to the Department, and that when diluted in the proportion of 1 part to 73 parts water it would give a dipping fluid of the composition required of a coal-tar creosote dip by the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture governing sheep scab; whereas, in fact and in truth, the contents of the package were not of the same composition as that of the sample submitted to the United States Department of Agriculture, and when diluted in the proportion of 1 part to 73 parts water would not give a dipping fluid of the composition required of a coal-tar creosote dip by the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture governing sheep scab; (c) in this, that the label on the package containing the insecticide bore a statement to the effect that the article would positively kill all vermin and parasites of every description, whereas, in fact and in truth, it would not kill certain species of vermin and parasites infesting domestic animals; and (d) in this, that the label on the package containing the insecticide bore a statement to the effect that the article would prevent cholera in swine, whereas, in fact and in truth, it would not prevent cholera in swine when prepared and applied according to the directions therefor on the label. Misbranding of the article was alleged further in that it was an insecticide other than Paris green and lead arsenate, and that it consisted partially of an inert substance, to wit, water, which does not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi, and the name and percentage amount of said inert ingredient was not stated on the label on the package containing the insecticide, nor, in lieu of the name and percentage amount of the said inert ingredient, were the names and percentage amounts of each and every ingredient of the insecticide having insecticidal or fungicidal properties and the total percentage of the inert ingredient stated on the label on the package containing the insecticide.

The cause coming on for trial on November 29, 1913, the defendant, The Tropical Oil Co., appeared and entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs. B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C., January 28, 1914.

83. Adulteration and misbranding of “Nico-Fume Liquid." U. S. v. Kentucky Tobacco Product Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $10 and costs. I. & F. No. 110. Dom. No. 5260. On September 2, 1913, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky, acting upon the report of the Secretary of Agriculture, filed information in the District Court of the United States for said district against the Kentucky Tobacco Product Co., Louisville, Ky., a corporation, alleging the shipment and delivery for shipment, on August 18, 1911, from Louisville, in the State of Kentucky, to Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, of a quantity of a certain article called "Nico-Fume Liquid," which was adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The article was contained in pint cans and one-half gallon cans. Each of the pint cans was labeled and branded in part as follows: "Nico-Fume Liquid A nicotine solution Consisting of Free Nicotine blended with Water. Active Ingredients, Nicotine 40% Inert Ingredients, 60% One Pint-Price $1.50 Original Package guaranteed to weigh not less than 1 lbs. net, and to contain not less than 2975 Grains of Nicotine." Each of the one-half gallon cans was labeled and branded as set forth for the pint cans, except that the price of same was fixed at $5.50 per can instead of $1.50 per pint, and a guarantee as to weight and amount of grains of nicotine contained therein was four times that of the pint cans.

Analysis of specimens of the article in the United States Department of Agriculture showed that it contained considerably less than 40 per cent nicotine, and that it consisted partially of inert substances which do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects. Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information in that it was an insecticide and its strength fell below the professed standard of percentage of nicotine under which it was sold, in this, that it did not contain 40 per cent nicotine as stated upon each of the cans and labels, but contained a much less percentage of nicotine than 40 per cent. Misbranding of the article was alleged in that it was an insecticide, and that the labels on the packages containing the insecticide bore a statement which was false and misleading, and that the insecticide was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser thereof, in this, that the labels on each of the cans containing the insecticide bore a statement that the insecticide contained 40 per cent of nicotine, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not contain 40 per cent of nicotine but contained much less than 40 per cent of nicotine. Misbranding of the article was alleged further in that it was an insecticide, and that it consisted partially of inert substances which do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the labels on the packages did not name and state thereon plainly and correctly the percentage amounts of each and every inert ingredient of the insecticide, and the labels did not state plainly the correct percentage amount of the ingredient of the insecticide, to wit, nicotine, which ingredient has insecticidal properties, and did not correctly state the total percentage of inert ingredients present in the insecticide.

The cause coming on for trial on December 5, 1913, the defendant, the Kentucky Tobacco Product Co., appeared and entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed a fine of $10 and costs.

B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C., January 28, 1914.

84. Adulteration and misbranding of “Fish Oil Soap." U. S. v. Roberta K. Good. Plea of guilty. Fine, $20. I. & F. No. 123. Dom. No. 6908.

[ocr errors]

On November 7, 1913, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, acting upon the report of the Secretary of Agriculture, filed information in the District Court of the United States for said district against Roberta K. Good, Philadelphia, Pa., doing business under the name and style of James Good, alleging the shipment, on February 21, 1912, from Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, to Nashville, in the State of Tennessee, of a quantity of a certain article called "Fish Oil Soap," which was adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The article was contained in packages each labeled and branded, in part, as follows: “One Pound Fish Oil Soap (Commonly called Whale Oil Soap). Guaranteed Analysis: Fish Oil 63 per cent. Actual Caustic Soda 7 per cent. Analysis of a specimen of the article in the United States Department of Agriculture showed that it contained less than 63 per cent fish oil. Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information in that it was an insecticide, and that its strength and purity fell below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold, in this, that the insecticide in fact contained less than 63 per cent fish oil. Misbranding of the article was alleged in that it was an insecticide, and that it was labeled and branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser thereof, in this, that each of the packages containing the insecticide bore the statement "Guaranteed Analysis: Fish Oil 63 per cent," whereas, in truth and in fact, the insecticide contained less than 63 per cent.

The cause coming on for trial on December 8, 1913, the defendant, Roberta K. Good, appeared and entered a plea of guilty, and the court imposed a fine of $20. B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C., January 28, 1914.

85. Misbranding of "Tough-on-Flies."

U. S. v. The Crescent Chemical Co. Plea of guilty.

Fine, $50 and costs. I. & F. No. 180. Dom. No. 7202.

On November 7, 1913, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, acting upon the report of the Secretary of Agriculture, filed information in the District Court of the United States for said district against The Crescent Chemical Co., Philadelphia, Pa., a corporation, alleging the shipment, on June 20, 1912, from Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, to New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, of a quantity of a certain article contained in cans, each labeled or branded" Tough-on-Flies" and purporting to contain one quart of the article, which was misbranded within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.

Examination of specimens of the article showed that the cans contained less than one quart of the article. Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information in that it was an insecticide, and (1) that the label on each of the cans containing the same bore the statement, "Tough-on-Flies, per quart can,

$.50," which statement was false and misleading in that it conveyed the thought and meaning that each of the cans contained one quart of the insecticide, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of the cans did not contain one quart of the insecticide, but on the contrary contained less than one quart thereof; and (2) that the label on the outside of each of the cans bore the statement, "Tough-on-Flies, per quart can, . . . $.50," which statement purported to state the contents of the can in terms of measure, and said statement did not constitute a plain and correct statement of the contents of the cans in measure.

The cause coming on for trial on December 8, 1913, the defendant, The Crescent Chemical Co., appeared and entered a plea of guilty, and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.

B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 28, 1914.

86. Misbranding of B. Howard Smitn. 7201.

Howard Smith's "Dead Shot" Cockroach Destroyer. U. S. v. B.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $5 and costs. I. & F. No. 193. Dom. No.

On December 6, 1913, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, acting upon the report of the Secretary of Agriculture, filed information in the District Court of the United States for said district against B. Howard Smith, Kansas City, Mo., alleging the shipment and delivery for shipment, on July 30, 1912, from Kansas City, in the State of Missouri, to New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, of a quantity of a certain article called "B. Howard Smith's 'Dead Shot' Cockroach Destroyer," which was misbranded within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The article was contained in packages labeled and branded in part as follows: "B. Howard Smith's Dead Shot' Cockroach Destroyer. Made and put up only

by B. Howard Smith, Kansas City, Mo.

* This powder is manufactured and guaranteed under the Insecticide Act of Congress, of 1910. Smith's Dead Shot Cockroach Destroyer. Never Fails. Price 50%. Put up by B. Howard Smith, sole proprietor and man'fr. Kansas City, Mo." Analysis of a specimen of the article in the United States Department of Agriculture showed that it consisted partially of inert substances, namely, corn starch and carbon, which do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects. Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information in that it was an insecticide other than Paris green and lead arsenate, and that it consisted partially of inert substances, to wit, corn starch and carbon, which substances do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the names and percentage amounts of each and every one of said inert ingredients were not stated on the label on the package containing the insecticide, nor, in lieu of the names and percentage amounts of said inert ingredients, were the names and percentage amounts of each and every ingredient of the insecticide having insecticidal properties and the total percentage of said inert ingredients thereof stated on the label on the package containing the insecticide.

The cause coming on for trial on December 12, 1913, the defendant, B. Howard Smith, appeared and entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed a fine of $5 and costs.

B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 28, 1914.

87. Adulteration and misbranding of “ Kibler's Strictly Pure Arsenate of Lead." U. S. v. Kibler-Lieber Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50 and costs. I. & F. No. 106. Dom. No.

207.

At the November term, 1913, of the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, begun and held at Indianapolis, Ind., the grand jurors of the United States within and for said district, acting upon the report of the Secretary of Agriculture, returned an indictment against the Kibler-Lieber Co., Indianapolis, Ind., a corporation, alleging the shipment and delivery for shipment, on April 4, 1912, from Indianapolis, in the State of Indiana, to St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, of a quantity of lead arsenate which was adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. The article was contained in barrels each labeled and branded in part as follows: The Kibler Chemical Co., Indianapolis, Ind. Kibler's Strictly Pure Arsenate of Lead. Poison. Manufactured by Kibler Chemical Co. Indianapolis, Ind. Contents of this package is guaranteed to contain not over 50% of water and to contain at least 15% arsenic oxide and not more than 3/4 of 1% of water soluble arsenic oxide, the balance being lead oxide. Arsenate of Lead 600 lbs."

66

« PreviousContinue »