30. Labeling a chicken louse powder composed of tobacco stems, sulphur, naphthalene, and plaster of Paris. GENTLEMEN: We have received your communication of labeling of your “Lice and Vermin Destroyer.” relative to the We regret to inform you that the limit of time for using supplementary sticker labels to give the information required by law expired January 1, 1912. At the present time it is necessary for this information to be plainly printed or stamped on the face of the principal label. * * * Relative to the active and inert ingredients of a lice destroyer composed of tobacco stems, sulphur, naphthalene, and plaster of Paris, we are of the opinion that the nicotine of the tobacco stems, the sulphur, and the naphthalene are active, while the tobacco stems other than nicotine, the sand and dirt, and any inert denaturing substances in the tobacco stems and the plaster of Paris are inert. We therefore suggest the following as the most feasible form of statement on the face of the principal label: Active ingredients: Nicotine..... Naphthalene... Inert ingredients............ Per cent. On the first and third panels of your label and in several other places on the label we note that the product is referred to as a vermin destroyer. In view of the fact that the product will not be of service against all vermin, we are of the opinion that this designation should be removed. On the first panel of the label appears the statement, "Kills insects on poultry, stock, plants, etc." In view of the fact that the product will not kill all insects, the word "insects" should be modified by some such word as "some," "certain," or "many," or the specific insects against which the product will be effective should be enumerated. * On the second panel of the label, under directions, we note the statement, "A handful of powder scattered about the nest box will keep the * fowl free from lice." We are of the opinion that this treatment would probably not be effective in freeing fowls of lice. * * * * * * * On the third panel of the label, in addition to the use of the words "Vermin Destroyer" already called to your attention, we note the statements: "It is also of value for insects on plants and vegetables. If you want to destroy * all kinds of vermin on poultry and in the poultry house, use *" In view of the fact that the product will not be of service against all insects on plants and vegetables and will not destroy all kinds of vermin on poultry and in the poultry house, we suggest that the word "insects" be modified by some such word as "some," " certain," or "many," and that the phrase "all kinds of vermin" be similarly changed. Respectfully, J. K. HAYWOOD, Chairman, Insecticide and Fungicide Board. 31. Labeling a liquid disinfectant and insecticide composed of kerosene, carbolic acid, oll of myrbane, and naphthalene. * relative to GENTLEMEN: We have received your communication of labeling your "Disinfectant and Insect Killer" under the provisions of the Insecticide Act of 1910. * * * * In a product which is to be used against bed bugs, chicken lice, we are of the opinion that the kerosene of your mixture, the carbolic acid, the oil of myrbane, and the naphthalene are all probably active, hence no statement is required relative to active and inert ingredients if the above ingredients are pure. If, however, any of the ingredients, such as the carbolic acid, contains water, then the water is inert, and the amount of same in the finished product should be stated on the face of the principal label, as "Water, Inert Ingredient, · per cent." We note that this product is designated a disinfectant, and several statements relative to disinfectant qualities are made on the label. From the composition of the article and the very small quantity of carbolic acid present, we are very doubtful as to whether this preparation would act as an effective disinfectant, i. e., killer of bacteria. We suggest, therefore, that you satisfy yourself that this product is an effective disinfectant by having it tested by a competent bacteriologist before making the claims relative to disinfectant qualities. * In addition to the above, on the left-hand panel of your label appears the statement, * moths * * "Kills * and ticks on cattle, etc." We are of the opinion that the product would not kill all moths, would not be effective against ticks on cattle, and that the abbreviation "etc." is too comprehensive. We suggest, therefore, that the statement be limited to "clothes moths," in case this is the moth against which it will be effective, that the statement relative to ticks on cattle be removed, and that the abbreviation "etc. " be removed. We also note on this panel of the label the statement, "Kills all kinds of vermin on trees," and are of the opinion that this is not true. " * On the second panel of the label we note the statement, "It will kill anything in the insect family instantly," and are of the opinion that this should be removed. A false statement on the label is not justified, even though it be given as the opinion of an expert. On the same panel, under "Animals," we note the statement, "Kills everything in insect life," and are of the opinion that this should be removed. Again, under "Disinfectant," we note, Disinfectant has no superior as a disinfectant" and "* * all insect life will be exterminated, bad odors expelled, and wholesome and pure air prevail. Its effects are instantaneous in every case.' As we have said before, we doubt whether the product is an effective disinfectant. Even if it is an effective disinfectant, it is not superior to all others, will not exterminate all insect life, will not expel all bad odors, but will simply mask some bad odors, and will not act instantaneously. Neither can it be promised that the product will produce wholesome and pure air. * Whether or not the statement on the right-hand panel of your label that the product is used in nearly all the large public institutions and hospitals throughout the Middle West is in accordance with facts we are unable to say. We note on this panel the statement, "Every doctor will recommend it whenever there are any contagious diseases," and "* * * kills all germs and bugs." We are of the opinion that the first statement is not true, that the product will probably not kill all germs, and that the product will certainly not kill all bugs. Hoping the above will be of service, I am, J. K. HAYWOOD, Chairman, Insecticide and Fungicide Board. 32. Labeling a roach powder composed of borax, French ocher, and sugar. GENTLEMEN: * # * We are not familiar with the term "French ocher;" however, if this is similar to the usual ocher of commerce (a native ferruginous clay), then in a roach powder containing borax, French ocher, and sugar we are of the opinion that the borax is active, while the French ocher and sugar are inert. We therefore suggest either of the following forms of statement on the face of the principal label: Active ingredients: Borax...... Per cent. Inert ingredients.. or Inert ingredients: French ocher.... Sugar... If your product consists principally of borax, then we are of the opinion that the words "Harmless to pet animals" should be removed from the label, since borax in sufficient quantities would be harmful to pet animals. Respectfully, J. K. HAYWOOD, Chairman, Insecticide and Fungicide Board. [Given pursuant to section 4 of the Insecticide Act of 1910.] 89. Misbranding of “Lime-Sulphur Solution." U. S. v. Peaslee-Gaulbert Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25 and costs. (I. & F. No. 172. Dom. No. 6955.) 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 Peaslee-Gaulbert Co., Louisville, Ky., a corporation, alleging the shipment and delivery for shipment, on May 18, 1912, from Louisville, in the State of Kentucky, to New Albany, in the State of Indiana, of a quantity of a certain article contained in two cans, each labeled "Lime Sulphur Solution," which was misbranded within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. Analysis of a specimen of the article in the United States Department of Agriculture showed that it consisted partially of inert substances, namely, water (65.94 per cent) and calcium sulphate (0.13 per cent), which do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi. Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information in that it was an insecticide other than Paris green or lead arsenate, and consisted partially of inert substances, to wit, water and calcium sulphate, which inert substances do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi, and that neither of the cans bore any label having the names and percentage amounts of each or any of said inert ingredients plainly and correctly stated on such label or said cans, and neither of said cans bore any label or statement plainly, or at all, stating the correct names and percentage amounts of each and every ingredient of the insecticide having insecticidal or fungicidal properties and the total percentage of said inert ingredients. The cause coming on for trial on October 18, 1913, and a jury having been waived, the cause was tried and determined by the court as to issues of fact as well as issues of law, upon a stipulation of facts as follows: That the defendant did not manufacture lime-sulphur solution, but was a jobber or dealer therein; that the lime-sulphur solution referred to in the information was a portion of a shipment previously received in barrels by the defendant from the Kibler-Lieber Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; that the cans referred to in the information were filled with the lime-sulphur solution from one of a number of barrels of the product received from the Kibler-Lieber Co., Indianapolis, Ind., by an employee of the defendant, who then attached to each of the cans labels bearing only the words "Lime Sulphur Solution," and delivered the cans so labeled for transportation to the consignee in New Albany, Ind., to a transfer company, a common carrier engaged in transporting property between Kentucky and Indiana; that the defendant knew of the existence of the Insecticide Act of 1910, but was not aware that the act applied to a shipment by it as a jobber of the lime-sulphur solution purchased by it from the manufacturers thereof and properly labeled by such manufacturers on the original packages; that the chemist's analysis of the product filed with the information was correct, but the 0.13 per cent of calcium sulphate was a negligible impurity in the lime and sulphur forming parts of the lime-sulphur solution; and that the lime-sulphur solution contained in the cans contained the usual ingredients of lime-sulphur solution sold throughout the country and in the usual proportions. The court found the defendant, the Peaslee-Gaulbert Co., guilty and imposed a fine of $25 and costs. B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C., May 6, 1914. 37 |