Issued July 1, 1920.
United States Department of Agriculture,
BUREAU   OF   CHEMISTRY,?
C. L. ALSBERG, Chief of Bureau.
SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.
SUPPLEMENT.
N. J. 6951-7000.?
[Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C, June  19,  1920.]
NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.
[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.]
G951. Adulteration and misbranding1 of olive oil. V. S. * * * v. Anthony?
J. Barbanera. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (F, & D. No. 9447. I. S.?
Nos. 2671-p, 2675-p.)
On March 5, 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?
Anthony J. Barbanera, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendant,?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about November 20,?
1917 (2 shipments), from the State of New York into the State of Massachu??
setts, of quantities of an article, labeled in part " Finest Quality Olive Oil,?
Extra Pure," which was adulterated and misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed the article to consist almost wholly of cottonseed oil and the net?
contents of the half-gallon cans to be 1 quart 1 pint 11.26 fluid ounces, a short??
age of 4.74 fluid ounces or 7.4 per cent, and of the quarter gallon cans to be 1?
pint 12.89 fluid ounces, a shortage of 3.11 fluid ounces or 9.72 per cent.
Adulteration of the article in each shipment 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 olive oil, which the article?
purported to be.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statements,?
to wit, " Finest Quality Olive Oil, Extra Pure," " Termini Imerese Italy Sicilia-?
Italia," "Guaranteed Absolutely Pure," and "Net Contents Half Gallon," or?
"Net Contents Quarter Gallon," as the case might be, borne on the cans con??
taining the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained?
181167?--20?1?
427
428	
.BUREAU OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 70,
therein, were false and misleading in that they represented that the article?
was pure olive oil, that it was a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced?
in Sicily, in the kingdom of Italy, and that each of said cans contained 1 gallon?
net or \ gallon net of the article, and for the further reason that it was labeled.?
as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it?
was pure olive oil, that it was a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced?
in Sicily, in the kingdom of Italy, and that each of said cans contained \ gal??
lon net or \ gallon net of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not?
pure olive oil, but was a mixture composed in part of cottonseed oil, and was?
not a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in Sicily, 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 \ gallon net or i gallon?
net of the article, but contained a less amount. Misbranding of the article was?
alleged 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 the kingdom of Italy; and for?
the further reason that it was a mixture 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 statements borne on the cans purported that the article was 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, 3919, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information,?
and the court imposed a fine of $25.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.