6952. Adulteration anil misbranding- of olive oil. IT. S. * * * v. S. F.?
Zalooiu & Co., a corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, SJ57. (F. & D. NO.?
9448.    I. S. No. 2680-p.)
On January 24, 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?
S. F. Zaloom & Co., a corporation, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said?
company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about?
September 11, 1917, from the State of New York into the State of Massachu??
setts, of a quantity of an article, labeled in part " Olio D'Oliva De Angelo?
Brand Lucca Olive Oil Product of Italy," which was adulterated and mis-?
branded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed the following results:
Net contents?
1 pint 14.51 fluid ounces
Shortage   (fluid ounces)?
1.49
Shortage (per cent)?
4.65
Iodin  number?
103.1
Test for cottonseed oil: Negative.?
Corn oil: Indicated.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
a substance, to wit, an oil other than olive 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 pur??
ported to be.
N.J. 6951-7000.]      SERVICE AND KEGULATOBY ANNOU2srCEMEN-TS.	429
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statements, to?
wit, "Olio D'Oliva De Angelo Brand," "Lucca Olive Oil Product of Italy,"?
and " i Gall. Net Content," borne on the cans containing the article, regarding?
it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and mis??
leading in that they represented that the article was pure olive oil, was a?
foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in Lucca, in the kingdom of?
Italy, and that each of said cans contained I 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 an oil other than olive 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 \ 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 manufactured and produced in whole or in part in?
the United States of America, and was branded as manufactured and pro??
duced in the kingdom of Italy, and for the further reason that it was a mix??
ture composed in part of an oil other than olive oil, prepared in imitation of?
olive oil, and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of an??
other article, to wit, olive oil, 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 Lucca, in the kingdom of Italy, and that each of said cans contained \ gal??
lon net of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not pure olive oil,?
but was a mixture composed in part of an oil other than olive 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 \ gallon net of the?
article, but contained a less amount; 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 January 29, 1919, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to?
the information, and the court imposed a fine of .$7.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.