6607. Adulteration and misbranding of olive oil. V. S. * * * v. Nickitas?
P. Economon and Nicholas Theodos (N. P. Economoa & Tlieodos).?
Pleas of suilty.    Fine, $30.     (P. & D. No. 7715.    I. S. No. 13658-r.)
On March 21, 1919, 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?
Mckitas P. Economou and Nicholas Theodos, copartners, trading as N. P.?
Bconomou & Theodos, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by sai? defendants,?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on August 13, 1918, from?
the State of New York into the State of Connecticut, of a quantity of an article?
labeled " La Itegina Del' Olio A Lucca 1 Gallon Net," which was adulterated?
and misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed the following results:
Average net contents of 12 cans?
3 qts., 1 pt, 9.5 fl. ozs.
Average shortage (per cent)?
.     5.0
Specific gravity at 20?/20? C?
       .9213
Itefractive index at 15.5?  C?
     1.4755
Iodin number?
117.2
Halphen test: Positive.
Qualitative test for corn oil with nitric acid: Positive.
Analysis shows the product to consist of a mixture of cottonseed oil?
and corn oil.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
certain substances, to wit, cottonseed oil and corn oil, had been mixed and?
packed therewith so as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality?
and strength, and had been substituted in part for pure olive oil, which the?
article purported to be.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statements,?
to wit, " La Regina Del' Olio A Lucca, 1 Gallon Net," borne on the cans con-?
taining the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained?
therein, were false and misleading in that they alleged that the article was?
olive oil, that it was a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in Lucca, in?
the kingdom of Italy, and that each of said cans contained 1 gallon net of the?
article; and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to?
deceive and mis-lead the purchaser into the belief that it was olive oil, that it?
was a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in Lucca, in the kingdom of?
Italy, and that each of said cans contained 1 gallon net of the article, whereas,?
in truth and in fact, it was not olive oil, but was a mixture composed in part?
of cottonseed oil and corn oil, and was not a foreign product, to wit, an olive?
oil produced in Lucca, in the kingdom of Italy, but was a domestic product, to?
wit, a product produced in the United States of America, and each of said?
cans did not contain 1 gallon net of the article, but contained a less amount;?
and for the further reason that it was falsely branded as to the country in?
which it was manufactured and produced, in that it was a product manufac??
tured and produced in whole or in part in the United States of America and?
was branded as manufactured and produced in Lucca, in the kingdom of Italy;?
and for the further reason that it was a mixture composed in part of cotton??
seed oil and corn oil prepared in imitation of olive oil and was sold under the?
distinctive name of another arMcle, to wit, olive oil; and for the further rea??
son that the article by the statements and trade mark on the label purported to
162275??20?2
126	
BUEEAU   OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 63.
be a foreign product when not so. Misbranding of the article was alleged for?
the further reason that it was food i>i package form, and the quantity of the?
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the?
package.
On April 2, 1919, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the information,?
and the court imposed a fine of $30.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretaryj)f Agriculture.
N. J. 6601-6650.]   SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	127