2961. Adulteration and misbranding ©f olive oil. TJ. S. v. 9 Cases and 16 Cases of Olive Oil. Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. No. 6197. Sample Nos. 84018-E, 84019-E.) Analysis indicated that this product consisted essentially of artificially flavored and artificially colored corn oil with a small amount of cottonses-d oil and little, if any, olive oil. The cans failed to bear the name of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. On November-10,1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland filed a libel against a total of 25 cases of olive oil at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about October 30, 1941, by Frank Roma from New York, N. Y.; and charging that it was adulterated and misbranded. It was labeled in part: (Cans) "Olio did Oliva Vergine Lucca Brand Prodotto Italiano"; or "Olio d' Oliva Sopraffino A. Sasso Brand." The article was alleged to be adulterated (1) in that artificially flavored and artificially colored corn oil with a small amount of cottonseed oil and con- taining little or no olive oil had been substituted wholly'or in part for olive oil, which it purported to be; (2) in that inferiority had been concealed by the addi- tion of artificial flavor and artificial color; and (3) in that artificial flavor and artificial color had teen added thereto or mixed or packed therewith so as to make it appear better and of greater value than it was. It was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that the following statements and designs /were false and misleading: (9 Cases) "Olio d Oliva Vergine Lucca * * ¦* Prodotto Italiano Olio d Oliva [design of an olive branch] * * * This olive oil is guaranteed pure olio d Oliva. Questo Olio e garantito a puro Oliva Olio d Oliva. Imported Pure Olive Oil"; (16 cases) "Superfine Olive Oil * * * Imported Product. Olio d Oliva Sopraffino * * * Prodotto Importato [design of an olive branch] Pure Olive Oil Imported. Olio Puro d'Oiiva Racommandato per also medicinale. Puro Olio d Oliva"; (2) in that it was offered for sale under the name of another food; (3) in that it was an imitation of another food and its labeling failed to bear in type of uniform size and prominence the word "imitation" and immediately thereafter the name of the food imitated; (4) in that it was in package form and did not bear a label containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; (5) in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear the common or usual name of each ingredient; and (6) in that it contained artificial flavoring and artificial coloring and did not bear labeling stating that fact. On December 15, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.