4611. Adulteration and misbranding of olive oil. U. S. v. Frances Spadaro?
et al. (Spadaro <fc Co.). Plea of grwilty. Fine, $25. (F. & D. No. 6942.?
I. S. No. 1377-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?
Frances Spadaro and Vincent C. Spadaro, copartners, trading under the firm?
name of Spadaro & Co., New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendants,?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on October 12, 1914, from the State of?
New York into the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity of olive oil which was?
adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled: (On front and back)?
(Representations of medals and olives) " Binomati Oleifici Spadaro" (Repre??
sentation of crown and bear and lion dancing) " Italia Prodotti Italian! Olio?
Extrafino Net contents \\ lb. 6| oz." (On two sides) "The contents of this?
can is guaranteed blended oil by Spadaro & Co. limited, Under the Pure Food?
Law Act June SO, 1906?Serial No. 55301?."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed the following results:
Specific gravity, 15.6? C./15.60 "C?
    0. 9200
Index of refraction at 25? C?
    1. 4707
Iodin   number?
98. 54"
Halphen test?
:?Positive.
Sesame oil test?
Negative.
Net weight   (ounces)?
26.80
27. 15?
27. 35
Average net weight (ounces)?^_?
27.10
Shortage  (per cent)?
11.40
10. 25
9.59
Average shortage (percent)?
10.42
Product was a mixture of cottonseed and olive oil and was short?
weight.
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 reduce, or lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and 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 statement, to wit, " Prodotti?
Italiani Olio Extrafino," together with the design of olive branches borne on the?
label of the article
,, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained?
therein, was false and misleading in that it indicated that the article was?
genuine olive oil, and was such as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the?
belief that it was genuine olive oil, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not, but?
was a mixture consisting, in whole or in part, of cottonseed oil prepared in imi??
tation of olive oil. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the?
article was an imitation of olive oil and was not labeled, branded, or tagged,?
so as plainly to indicate that it was an imitation, and the word " imitation "?
was not plainly stated on the package in which the article was offered for sale.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the statement, to wit,?
"Prodotti Italiani Olio Extrafino," together with the design of olive branches?
borne on the label of the article, indicated that it was a foreign product, to wit,?
an olive oil produced in the Kingdom of Italy, whereas, in truth and in fact, it?
was not, but was a product of domestic origin, to wit, a mixture consisting, in
156	
BUREAU   OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 23;
whole or in part, of cottonseed oil, produced in the United States of America.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the statement, to wit, " Net?
contents 1J lb. 61 oz.," borne on the label, regarding the article, was false and?
misleading in that it indicated that the can contained 1J pounds, 65 ounces of?
the article, and was such as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief?
that it Contained li pounds, 6? ounces of said article, whereas, in truth and in?
fact, it did not contain \\ pounds, 6| ounces, but did contain a less amount.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was in package?
form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked?
on the outside of said package.
On April 7, 1916, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant firm,?
and the court imposed a fine of $25.
. C. P.'MAEVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N.J. 4601-4650.]      SERVICE  AND  REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	157