11394. Adulteration and misorantling; of olive oil. TJ. S. v. John A. Demo-?
potilas and George A. Demoponlas (Tripoli Importing- Co.). Pleas?
of g-nilty.     Fine, $60.     (F. & D. No. 16936.    I.  S. Nos. 15570-t, 15571-t.)
On January 24, 1923, 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?
John A. Demopoulas and George A. Demopoulas, trading as Tripoli Importing?
Co., New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the?
Food and Drugs Act, as amended, from the State of New York into the State?
of Connecticut, on or about February 1, 1922, of a quantity of Tripolitania?
brand oil, and on or about March 10, 1922, of a quantity of Campagna brand?
olive oil, which were adulterated and misbranded. The articles were labeled?
in part,  respectively:   "Net   Contents  Full  Gallon    *    *    *    Olio   Sopraffino
*?*    *    A Compound Tripolitania Brand; " " Italian Product Pure Olive Oil?
Virgin Campagna Brand    *    *    *    Net Contents One Full Gallon."
Analysis of a sample of the Tripolitania brand by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this department showed that it consisted mostly of cottonseed oil. Ex??
amination of 10 cans showed an average volume of 0.968 gallon. Analysis of?
a sample of the Campagna brand by said bureau showed that it contained an oil?
or oils other than Italian olive oil. Examination of 7 cans showed an average?
volume of 0.973 gallon.
Adulteration of the Campagna brand was alleged in the information for the?
reason that oil or oils other than Italian olive oil had been substituted in whole?
or in part for Italian olive oil, which the said article purported to be. Adultera??
tion of the Tripolitania brand was alleged for the reason that a substance, to?
wit, cottonseed oil, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to lower and
206	
BUREAU  OE   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 158,
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 Campagna brand was alleged for the reason that?
the statements, to wit, " Italian Product Pure Olive Oil * * * Tuscany,?
Italy * * * Net Contents One Full Gallon," borne on the cans containing?
the article, regarding the article and the ingredients and substances contained?
therein, were false and misleading in that they represented that the said article?
was an Italian product, to wit, an olive oil produced in Tuscany, in the kingdom?
of Italy, and that each of the said cans contained one 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 an Italian product, to wit, an?
olive oil produced in Tuscany, in the kingdom of Italy, and that each of the?
said cans contained one gallon net of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact,?
it was
 not an Italian product but was a product composed in whole or in part?
of oil or oils other than Italian olive oil, and each of said cans did not contain?
one gallon net of the said article. Misbranding of the Tripolitania brand was?
alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Net Contents Full Gallon,"?
" Olio Sopraffino Qualita Superiore," and " Olio B^inissimo * * * Olive?
Oil," borne in large type on the cans containing the article, not corrected by the?
statement, " Cotton Seed And," borne in inconspicuous type on the said cans,?
together with the designs and devices of Italian shields, cr?wns, and medals,?
appearing on said cans, regarding the article and the ingredients and sub??
stances contained therein, were false and misleading in that they represented?
that the said article was olive oil, that it was a foreign product, to wit, an olive?
oil produced in the kingdom of Italy, and that each of said cans contained one?
gallon net of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not olive oil but was?
a mixture composed in large part of cottonseed oil, it was not a foreign product,?
to wit, an olive oil produced in the kingdom of Italy, but was a domestic product,?
to wit, an article produced in the United States of America, and each of said?
cans did not contain one gallon net of the article but did contain a less amount.?
Misbranding was alleged with respect to both brands of the article for the fur??
ther 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 February 19, 1923, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the informa??
tion, and the court imposed a fine of $60.
C. W. PTJGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.