6942. Adulteration and misbranding- of olive oil. TJ. S. * * * v. Nicliitas?
I*. Economou and Nicholas Theodos (N. P. Bconomou & Theodos).?
Pleas of guilty.    Fine, $30.    (P. & D. No. 9436.     I.  S. No. 13719-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?
Nickitas P. Economou and Nicholas Theodos, copartners, trading as N. P.?
Economou & Theodos, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendants, in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on August 14, 1918, from?
the State of New York into the State of Connecticut, of a quantity of an article,?
labeled in part " Olive Oil," which was adulterated and misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed it to consist of cottonseed oil and to be short measure.
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 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, " Olio Sopraffino Qualita Superiore, Olio Finissimo, Olive Oil, Tripoli-?
tania Brand," in prominent type, together with designs and devices of Italian?
flags, shields, crowns and medal, not corrected by the statements in inconspicu??
ous type, " Cotton Seed * * *" and " * * * A Compound * * *," and?
the statement, to wit, " Net Contents Full Gallon," borne on the cans containing?
the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained therein,?
were false and misleading in that they represented that the article was olive?
oil, that it was a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in the kingdom?
of Italy, and that each of said cans contained 1 full gallon 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 the article was olive oil, and that said?
article was a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in the kingdom of?
Italy, and that each of said cans contained 1 full gallon of the article, whereas,?
in truth and in fact, it was not olive oil, but was a product composed in part of?
cottonseed oil, and was not a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced 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 full?
gallon of the article, but contairied a less amount; and for the further reason?
that it was a product composed in part of cottonseed oil prepared in imitation,?
of olive oil, and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of?
another article, to wit, olive oil, and for the further reason that the article, by?
the designs and devices on the label, purported to be a foreign product, when?
not so. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the further reason that it?
was food in 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 defendant entered pleas of guilty to the information,?
and the court imposed a fine of $30.
C. F. MABVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.