REPORT OF THE INSECTICIDE AND FUNGICIDE BOARD. 



United States Department of Agriculture, 



Insecticide and Fungicide Board, 

 Washington^ D. 6'., October P, 1918. 

 Sir: I have the honor to submit herewith a report on the work 

 of the Insecticide and Fungicide Board for the fiscal year ended 

 June 30, 1918. 



Eespectfully, 



J. K. Haywood, 



Chairman of Board. 

 Hon. D. F. Houston, 



Secretary of Agriculture. 



The insecticide act of 1910 places upon the department the respon- 

 sibility of regulating the interstate shipments and importations into 

 the United States at its various ports of entry of insecticides and 

 fungicides and also the manufacture and sale of such products in the 

 Territories and the District of Columbia. The importance of the 

 food production campaign has caused the board to increase its efforts 

 to protect the farmer, fruit grower, market gardener, and stock 

 and poultry raiser against fraudulent, misbranded, and adulterated 

 insecticides and fungicides, and thereby establish the confidence 

 which tends to encourage the use of these materials by farmers in 

 preventing and combating diseases and insect pests of their crop 

 plants and live stock. It has been noted that there are many new 

 insecticide and fungicide preparations on the market which are 

 being made both by old manufacturers and new manufacturers who 

 have entered the field. Evidently this stimulus to the industry is the 

 normal result of the demand for insecticides and fungicides created 

 by the campaign for greater food production. 



INTERSTATE SAMPLES. 



During the fiscal year the board reported to the Solicitor of the 

 department 132 cases presenting alleged violations of law and with 

 recommendations that the facts be transmitted to the Attorney 

 General to institute criminal action or seizure proceedings. Dispo- 

 sition was made of 195 cases by correspondence with the manufac- 

 turers. These cases presented violations which were technical only, 

 not flagrant, or cases in which the manufacturer gave reasonable and 

 adequate explanation of his failure to conform to the provisions of 

 the act. Action was taken to place in abeyance 726 samples, which, 

 upon examination and test, were shown to be in compliance with 

 the provisions of the law or were from shipments of the same goods 

 made prior to shipments for which the manufacturer had been con- 

 victed and had after citation conformed to the requirements of the 

 law. On June 30, 1918, 55 cases were pending preliminary hearings 



97335°— AGK 1918 28 425 



