4366.   Adulteration and misbranding of olive oil.    TJ. S. ?. C. D. Gregg: Tea?
&   Coffee   Co.,   a   corporation.    Plea   of   gfuilty.    Fine,   $10.     (F.   &
D.  No.  5964.    I.  S.  N'os. 2814-k,  2817-k.)
On February 28, 1916, 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 the?
C. D. Gregg Tea & Coffee Co., a corporation, doing business at New York, N. Y.,?
alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on?
February 4 and May 5, 1915, from the State of New York into the State of New?
Jersey, of quantities of olive oil, one of which was adulterated and misbranded,?
and the other misbranded, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The. oil?
shipped February 4, 1915, was labeled: " Gregg's Sublime Olive Oil One Gal??
lon C. D. Gregg Company. Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June?
30, 1906.   New York.   Chicago.   St. Louis.U. S. A."
Analysis of a sample of this article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed the following results 5??
Specific gravity at 15.5? C?
0.9178
Iodin number   (Hanus)?
Halphen test for cottonseed oil?
Strongly positive
Net  contents   (gallons)?
0.981
Shortage  (per cent)?
1.9
Color comparison with known mixture shows about 25 per cent of
cottonseed oil.?
This product is a mixture of olive oil and about 25 per cent of
cottonseed oil.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that a certain substance, to wit, cottonseed oil, had been substituted in whole or?
in part for olive oil, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the following statement regard??
ing the article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, appearing?
on the label aforesaid, to wit, " Sublime Olive Oil," was false and misleading?
in that it indicated to purchasers thereof that the article consisted wholly of?
pure sublime olive oil, and was such as to deceive and mislead purchasers into?
the belief that it consisted wholly of pure sublime olive oil, when, in truth and?
in fact,. it did not, but consisted of, to wit, a mixture of olive oil and cotton??
seed oil. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was?
a mixture of cottonseed oil and olive oil, and was an imitation of, and was?
offered for sale under the distinctive name of, another article, to wit, olive oil.
The oil shipped May 5, 1915, was labeled, in part: " Sublime Pure Imported?
Olive Oil    *    *    *    1 Gallon Net Contents."
Examination of samples of this article by said Bureau of Chemistry showed?
the following results:
K J, 4351-4400.]     SERVICE AND BEGULATOBY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	535
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the following statement regard??
ing the article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, appearing?
on the label aforesaid, to wit, " 1 Gallon Net Contents," was false, and mislead??
ing in that it indicated to purchasers thereof that each of the packages con??
tained one gallon net of the article of food, and was such as to deceive and?
mislead' purchasers into the belief that each of said packages contained one?
gallon net of the article of food, when, in truth and in fact, it did not, but?
contained a less amount thereof. Misbranding was alleged for the further?
reason that the article consisted of food in package form, and the quantity of?
the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the?
packages in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count.
On March 10, 1916, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $10.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
536	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 18.