7022.  A&ulieraiion and raislwanjlixig of olive  oil.    U.  S.   *    *    *   "v.  Emilio
Di Bianco.    Plea of s'ullty.    Fine, $2Q0,     (F. & D. No. 9723.    I. S. Nos. 
2954-p,  12577-r.)
On July 18, 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 Emilio Di 
Bianco, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendant, in violation of 
the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on June 1, 1918, from the State of New 
York into the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity of so-called olive oil which 
was adulterated and misbranded, and on June 3, 1918, from the State of New 
York into the State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of olive oil which was mis- 
branded. The oil shipped to Pennsylvania was labeled in part, " 1 Gall. Net," 
and was invoiced by the shipper as olive oil. The oil shipped to Massachusetts 
was labeled in part, " 1 Gal."
Analysis of a sample of the oil shipped, to Pennsylvania by the Bureau of 
Chemistry of this department showed that it consisted almost entirely of cotton- 
seed oil, and that the contents of the cans were short in volume, the average 
shortage on 12 cans being 5.07 per cent. Examination of the oil shipped to Mas- 
sachusetts showed an average shortage on 10 cans of 5,88 per cent.
Adulteration of the oil shipped to' Pennsylvania was alleged in the informa- 
tion 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 this article was alleged for the 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. Misbranding of this oil and of the oil shipped to Massachusetts wTas 
alleged for the further reason that the statements, to wit, " 1 Gall. Net" and 
" 1 Gal.," as the case might be, borne on the cans containing the article, regard- 
ing it, were false and misleading in that they represented that each of the cans 
contained 1 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 each of said cans contained 1 gallon net of the article, when, in truth and 
ill fact, each of said cans did not contain 1 gallon net of the article, but did 
contain a less amount; and for the further reason that the article was food in 
package form, and the quantity of the conteuts was not plainly and conspicu- 
ously marked on the outside of the package.
On July 30, 3919, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $200.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
7:)2,'J. aiisl>i-fiii?liii?- of SalvjHsie. I:. S. * * * v. THo. American Apothe- 
caries Co. Plea of guilt}-. Fine, $208. (F. & D. No. 9788. I. S. No. 
17002-r.)
On July 17, 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 tho United States for said district an information against The American 
Apothecaries Co., a corporation, Astoria, N. Y., alleging shipment by said com- 
pany, in violation of the Food and Drugs* Act, as amended, on May 25, 1918, 
from the State of New York into the Island of Porto Itico, of a quantity of an 
article, labeled in part " Salvitae," which was misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart- 
ment showed that it consisted essentially of citric and tartaric acids with sul- 
phates, carbonates or bicarbonates, and phosphates of magnesium, sodium, 
potassium, and lithium, and a trace of hexamethylenetetramine.
It was alleged in substance in the information that the ai'ticle was mis- 
branded for the reason that certain statements, appearing on the labels of the 
bottles containing the article and on the wrapper around said bottles, falsely 
and fraudulently represented it to be effective as a treatment, remedy, and cure 
for gout, rheumatism, Bright's disease, Riggs' disease, stomatitis, recession of 
the gums, urethritis, cystitis, gravel, inflammatory affections of the urinary 
passages and diseases that are produced by uric acid, inactivity of the kidneys, 
renal or hepatic calculi or incontinence and gingivitis, as a uric acid solvent, 
urinary antiseptic and diuretic and intestinal antiseptic, to fortify the system 
against the millions of dangerous microbes, and to restore lost health and pre- 
serve one from disease, when, in truth and in fact, it was not.
On November 12, 1919, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $200.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.