110J53. Adulteration, and. misbranding of olive oil. U. S. v. Vincent Car??
rara. Plea of gnilty. Fine, $50. (P. & D. No. 16213. I. S. No.?
6266-t.)
On May 26, 1922, 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?
Vincent Carrara, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendant, in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about March 30, 1921.?
from the State of New York into the State of New Jersey, of a quantity of olive?
oil which was adulterated and misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed that it consisted chiefly, if not entirely, of cottonseed oil. Exami??
nation by said bureau showed that the average volume of 51 cans was 0.8 gal??
lon and that the cans varied in volume from 0.73 to 0.93 gallon.
JN. J. 11001-11050.]      SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.       17
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 la*ge part for olive oil, which the said article purported?
to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Extra?
Fine Olive Oil Olio d'Oliva Purissimo Importato Italia Brand 1 Gallon Net,"?
"borne on the cans containing the article, regarding the said article and the?
ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and misleading in?
that the said statements represented that the article was olive oil, that it was?
a foreign product, to wit, olive oil produced in the Kingdom of Italy, and?
that each of the said 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 it was olive oil, that it was a foreign product,?
to wit, an olive oil produced in the Kingdom of Italy, and that each of the?
said cans contained 1 gallon net of the said article, whereas, in truth and in?
fact, it was not olive oil, but was a mixture composed in large part of cotton??
seed oil, it was not a foreign product, but was a domestic product, to wit, an?
article produced in the United States of America, and each of said cans did?
not contain 1 gallon net of the said article, but did contain a less amount.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was a mixture?
composed in large part of cottonseed oil, prepared in imitation of and offered?
for sale and sold under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, olive?
oil, for the further reason that it purported to be a foreign product when not?
so, and 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 out??
side of the package.
On September 26, 1922, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the informa??
tion, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.