6965. Adulteration and misbranding of olive oil. V. S. * * * v. S. F.?
Zaloom & Co., a corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $150. (F. & D.?
No. 9473.     I. S. No. 92Gl-p.)
On April 10, 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?
November 27, 1917, from the State of New York into the State of Michigan,?
of a quantity of an article, labeled in part " Lucca Olive Oil," which was?
adulterated and misbranded.
Examination of a sample ,of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed the following results:
Average net contents of 3 cans?
1 pint 15 fluid ounces.
Average shortage (fluid ounces)?
     1
Average shortage  (per cent)?
? 3.0
Halpen test for cottonseed oil: Positive.
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?
purported to be.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statements,?
to wit, " Olio D'Oliva Dc Angelo Brand," " Lucca Olive Oil Product of Italy,"?
and " i Gall. Net Content," borne on the cans containing the article, regard??
ing it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and?
misleading in that they represented that the article was pure olive oil, that?
it was a foi'eign product, to wit, olive oil produced in Lucca, in the kingdom of?
Italy, and that each of said cans contained i gallon net of the article, and
N. J. 6951-7000.]     SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.        439
for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid bso as to deceive and?
mislead the purchaser into the belief that the article was pure olive oil, that?
it was a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in Lucca, in the king??
dom of Ifaly, and that each jof said cans contained \ 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 con??
tained 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 manu??
factured 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 produced in the kingdom of Italy; and for the reason that?
it was a mixture 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 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 23, 1919, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $150.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.