S452. Adulteration, and misbranding; of olive oil. tl. S. * * * v. 31?
Gallons 6JE ia Px-odnct Pnryorting; to be Olive Oil. Default decree?
of condemnation and forfeiture. Product ordered sold. (I<\ & D.?
No. 10232.    I. S. Nos. 13585-r, 13586-r.    S. No. E-1376.)    .
On May 12, 1919, the United States attorney for'the Middle District of Penn??
sylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United grates for said district a libel for the seizure and con??
demnation of a certain quantity of an article purporting to be olive oil, at Scran-?
ton, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about April 24, 1919,?
by N. P. Economou & Theodos, New York, N. Y., and transported from the State?
of New York.into the State of Pennsylvania, and charging adulteration and mis??
branding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart-?
, ment showed that it consisted essentially of cottonseed oil flavored with a small?
quantity of olive oil and that the quantity of the contents of the cans was less than?
1 gallon and i gallon, respectively, as labeled.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel in that the article con??
sisted essentially of cottonseed oil which had been substituted wholly or in part?
for the article which the labels on the package purported the contents thereof?
to be, to wit, olive oil.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the statements on the labels on?
the cans, regarding the contents of the cans, "Finest Quality Table Oil, Insup-?
erabile Termini Imerse," together with the pictorial designs and devices thereof,?
were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser in that it pur??
ported to be a foreign product, when it was not a foreign product. Further?
misbranding was alleged in that the article was an imitation of, and was offered?
for sale under the distinctive name of, another article, to wit, olive oil. Further?
misbranding was alleged in substance in that the products were articles of food?
in package form, and the quantity of the contents in each case was not de??
clared,, that is to say, was not correctly stated.
On January 1, 1920, no claimant having- appeared, judgment of condemna??
tion and forfeiture.was entered, and the product was ordered sold by the?
United States marshal.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.