4618. Misbranding of cottonseed salad oil, and adulteration and mis??
branding- of seiroppo tamarindo. U. S. v. Harry Fried <X. Pried &?
Sonsj Metropolitan Importing Co.; and Lange Bros.).    Plea of gnilty.
Fine, $50.     (F.  & D.  No.  6956.     I.  S.  Nos.  6788-h,  9539-b,  6540-h,  9641-h,?
9542-h, 17961-h.)
On March 6, 1916, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in fhe-?
District Court of the United- States for said district an information against?
Harry Fried, trading variously as L. Fried & Sons, Metropolitan Importing Co.,?
and Lange Bros., New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendant, in vio??
lation of the Food and Drugs Act, on November 3, 1913, January 3, 1914, March?
24, 1914, and April 1, 1914, from the State of New York into the State of Penn??
sylvania, of quantities of cottonseed salad oil, which article was misbranded,?
and on April 25, 1914, from the State of New York into the State of Pennsyl??
vania, of a quantity of seiroppo tamarindo, which was adulterated and mis-?
branded. 
 Part of the oil shipped November 3, 1913, was labeled: (On retail?
package) " Marca " (design of star and crescent) "Registrata Net Contents 1?
Gall. Olio Sopraffino Di Cotone Marca Luna Crescente Brand Finissima Ex--.?
tra Quality Genuine Gotton seed Salad Oil." (Balance of can was covered?
with stars and crescents.) (Case was stenciled, in part) "Luna Brand 12?
Tins    *    *    *."
Analysis of a sample of this article by the -Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it gave a Halphen test equal in intensity to that given?
by pure cottonseed oil.   The contents of two tins measured as follows:?
No. 1, contents, 0.856 gallon; shortage, 14.4 per cent.?
No. 2, contents, 0.861 gallon; shortage, 13.9 per cent.?
Average shortage, 14.1 per cent.
The remainder of the oil shipped on November 3, 1913, was labeled: (On retail?
package) "Marca" (design of crescent and star) "Registrata Net Contents y??
Gall. Olio Sopraffino Di Cotone Marca Luna Crescente Brand Finissimo Ex??
tra Quality Genuine Cottonseed Salad Oil." (Balance of can was covered?
with stars and crescents.) (Case was stenciled, in part) "Luna Brand 24?
tins    * . *    *.??
Analysis of a sample of this article by said Bureau of Chemistry showed?
that it gave a Halphen test equal in intensity to that given by pure cottonseed?
oil.   The contents of three tins measured as follows:
No. 1, contents, 0.444 gallon; shortage, 11.2 per cent.?
No. 2, contents, 0.424 gallon; shortage, 15.2 per cent.?
No. 3, contents, 0.443 gallon; shortage, 11.4 per cent.?
Average shortage, 12.6 per cent.
The oil shipped January 3, 1914, was labeled: (On retail can) "Marca " (star?
and crescent) " Registrata Net Contents 1 Gall. Olio Sopraffino Di Cotone.?
Marca Luna Crescente Brand Finissimo?Extra Quality. Genuine Cottonseed?
Salad Oil."    (Balance of can was covered with stars and crescents.)
Analysis of a sample of this article by said Bureau of Chemistry showed:
Specific gravity, 15.5? C./15.50 C?
     0.9230-
Index of refraction at 15.5? C?
      1.4734
Melting point of fatty acids (?C)?
    36.0
Iodin  number?
 110
Free fatty acids as oleic (per cent)?
      0.05   .
Halpen test with 1 per cent olive oil?
Positive
166	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 23.
The contents of two tins measured as follows:
No. 1, contents, 0.835 gallon; shortage, 16.5 per cent.?
No. 2, contents, 0.806 gallon; shortage, 19.4 per cent.?
Average shortage, 18.0 per cent.?
The oil shipped March 24, 1914, was labeled:    (On retail package) "Olio Di?
Cotone?Sopraffino Per Insalata Vincitore Brand Cotton Salad Oil Extra Qual??
ity."    (Back of can)  (Monogram) " L. 0. S.   Net Contents ? Gal."    (Case was?
stenciled, in part) "48 cans Vincitore Salad Oil    *    *    *."
The analysis of a sample of this article by said Bureau of Chemistry showed?
that it gave a Halphen test equal in intensity to that given by pure cottonseed?
oil.    The contents of six tins measured as follows:
No. 1, contents, 0.210 gallon; shortage, 16.0 per cent.?
No. 2, contents, 0.210 gallon; shortage, 16.0 per cent.?
No. 3, contents, 0.209 gallon; shortage, 16.4 per cent.?
No. 4, contents, 0.214 gallon; shortage, 14.4 per cent.?
No. 5, contents, 0.210 gallon; shortage, 16.0 per cent.?
No. 6, contents, 0.215 gallon; shortage, 14.0 per cent.?
Average shortage, 15.6 per cent.?
The oil shipped April 1, 1914, was labeled:   (On retail package)   "Olio Di?
Cotone?Sopraffino   Per   Insalata   Vincitore   Brand?Cotton   Salad   Oil   Extra?
Quality."     (Back  of can)    (Monogram)   " L.   C.   S.   Net  Contents  1   Gallon."?
(Case was stenciled, in part) "12 cans Vincitore Salad Oil    *    *    *."
Analysis of a sample of this article by said Bureau of Chemistry showed?
that it gave a Halphen test equal in intensity to that given by pure cottonseed?
oil.    The contents of four tins measured as follows:
No. 1, contents, 0.847 gallon; shortage, 15.3 per cent.?
No. 2, contents, 0.869 gallon; shortage, 13.1 per cent.?
No. 3, contents, 0.878 gallon; shortage, 12.2 per cent.?
No. 4, contents, 0.870 gallon; shortage, 13.0 per cent.?
Average shortage, 13.4 per cent.?
Misbranding of all the oil was alleged in the information for the reason that?
the statement, to wit, "Net contents 1 gall." (or "J gall." or "1 gall.," as the?
case might be), regarding the article, was false and misleading in that it indi??
cated that each of the cans contained 1 gallon net  (or one-half or one-fourth?
gallon) of the article, [and] was such as to deceive and mislead the purchaser?
into the belief that each of the cans contained 1 gallon net (or one-half or one-?
fourth gallon) of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of the cans did?
not, but contained a less amount.
The sciroppo tamarindo was labeled: (On retail package) " Sciroppo Tama-?
rindo " (picture of pods). (On shipping package) "Sciroppo Tamarindo Lange?
Bros. New York."
Analysis of a sample of this article by said Bureau of Chemistry showed the?
following results:
Solids by refractometer (percent)?
      62.5
Nonsugar solids (percent)?
       2.26
Sucrose, Clerget (percent)?
     46.9
Reducing sugars as invert, before inversion (per cent)?      13.34
Commercial glucose?
None.
Ash (percent)?
:?:??
       0.06
Alkalinity of soluble ash (cc N/10 acid per 100 grams)?      12. 8
Phosphoric acid (P206) (percent)?
       0.005
Tartaric acid?
None.
-N. X 4601-4650.]      SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	167
Total acids as citric (per cent)?;?
       1. 44
Citric acid?
Present.
Color (i-in. cell, brewer's scale)?
   120
Colored with caramel.
Product consisted essentially of a sugar sirup flavored with citric?
acid and colored with caramel.
Adulteration of this article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that a solution, sweetened, colored, and flavored in imitation of tamarind sirup,?
had been mixed and packed therewith, so as to lower, or reduce, and inju??
riously affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted, in whole or?
in part, for sciroppo tamarindo, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement borne on the label?
of the article, to wit, " Sciroppo Tamarindo," regarding the article and the?
ingredients and substances contained therein, was false and misleading in?
that it indicated that the article was genuine tamarind sirup, and was such?
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was genuine?
tamarind sirup, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not genuine tamarind?
sirup, but was a solution, sweetened, colored, and flavored in imitation of?
tamarind sirup.
On March 9, 1916, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information,?
and the court imposed a fine of $50.
Cc F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
168	-	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY..	
[Supplement28.