6954.  Adulteration   and   misbranding   of   olive   oil.    V.   S.   *    *    *   v.   S.   F.?
Zaloom & Co., a corporation.    Plea of gnilty.   Pine, SJ510.     (F. & D.
No. 9450.    I. S   No. 2684-p.)
On July 17, 1919, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
S. F. Zaloom & Co,, a corporation, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said?
company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about?
February 20, 1918, from the State of New York into the State of Massa??
chusetts, of a quantity of an article, labeled in part " De Angelo Brand Lucca?
OHve Oil," which was adulterated and misbranded.
Examination of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed the following results:
Average net contents of 10 cans?
1 pint 14.57 fluid ounces.
Average shortage (fluid ounces)?
1.43
Average shortage  (per cent)?
4.46
Test for cottonseed oil: Strongly positive.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
a substance, to wit, cottonseed oil, had been mixed and packed therewith so as?
to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had?
been substituted in part for olive oil, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the article wTas alleged for the reason that the statements,?
to wit, " Olio D'Oliva De Angelo Brand," " Lucca Olive Oil Product of Italy,"?
and " 1/4 Gall. Net Contents," borne on the cans containing the article, regard??
ing it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and mis??
leading in that they represented that the article was pure olive oil, that it was a?
foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in Lucca, in the kingdom of?
Italy, and that each of said cans contained J gallon net of the article, and?
for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and?
mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was pure olive oil, that it was?
a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in Lucca, in the kingdom of?
Italy, that each of said cans contained i gallon net of the article, whereas,?
in truth and in fact, it was not pure olive oil, but was a mixture composed?
in part of cottonseed oil, and was not a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil?
produced in Lucca, in the kingdom of Italy, but was a domestic product, to wit,?
a product produced in the United States of America, and each of said cans?
did not contain J gallon net of the article, but contained a less amount; and?
for the further reason that it was falsely branded as to the country in which?
it was manufactured and produced in that it was a product manufactured and?
produced in whole or in part in the United States of America, and was branded?
as manufactured and produced in the kingdom of Italy; and for the further?
reason that it was a mixture composed in part of cottonseed oil prepared in?
imitation of olive oil, and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive?
name of another article, to wit, olive oil; and for the further reason that the?
statements borne on the cans purported that the article was a foreign product,?
when not so.   Misbranding of the article was alleged for the further reason
432	
BUREAU  OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 70,
that it was food in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not?
plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On July 30, 1919, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $10.
B. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.