11434.?Adnlteration and  misbranding  of  olive  oil.     U.  S.  v.  John  Zeppos,
Nicholas Antonio, and Anthony Antonio (Alpha Importing Co.).?
Pleas of grnilty. Fine, $300. (F. & D. No. 16857. I. S. Nos. 5092-t,?
5093-t, 5094-t, 5486-t, 5626-t, 5627-t, 5628-t,  12151-t.)
At the February, 1923, term of the United States District Court, within and?
for the Southern District of New York, the United States attorney for said?
district, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed*in the dis??
trict court aforesaid an information against John Zeppos, Nicholas Antonio,?
and Anthony Antonio, copartners, trading as the Alpha Importing Co., New?
York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the Food?
and Drugs Act, as amended, in various consignments, namely, on or about?
May 3, 11, and 21, 1921, respectively, from the State of New York into the?
State of Massachusetts, and on or about May 7, 1921, from the State of New?
York into the State of New Hampshire, of quantities of olive oil, a portion of?
which was adulterated and misbranded and the remainder of which was mis-?
branded. A portion of the article was labeled in part: " Marconi Brand Finest?
Pure Olive Oil Guglielmo Marconi * * * Extra Fine." The remainder of?
the article was contained in a barrel and was labeled in part, (tag) "From?
Alpha Importing Co. 351 Bast 32nd St., New York," and was invoiced as?
olive oil.
Analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample of the?
article contained in the said barrel showed that it contained approximately 25?
per cent of cottonseed oil. Examination of the Marconi brand by said bureau?
showed that the said cans contained less of the said article than declared on?
the respective labels, and in one shipment the product contained a large quan??
tity of added oil other than olive oil.
Adulteration of the article contained in the said barrel was alleged in the?
information for the reason that cottonseed oil had been substituted in whole?
or in part for olive oil, which the said article purported to be. Adulteration?
was alleged with respect to one shipment of the Marconi brand oil for the?
reason that a substance, to wit, an oil other than olive oil, had been substi??
tuted in whole or in part for olive oil, which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding of the article contained in the said barrel was alleged for the?
reason that it was a mixture composed in whole or 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 was?
alleged with respect to one shipment of the Marconi brand for the reason that?
it was a mixture composed in whole or 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.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the Marconi brand oil for the?
reason that the statements, to wit, " One Full Gallon," " Half Full Gallon,"?
" Quarter Full Gallon," and " Eighth Full Gallon," borne on the respective-?
sized cans containi*"r the ar?oi<^ and the statement, to wit, " Finest Pure Olive
230	
BUREAU  OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 159,.
Oil," borne on the cans contained in one shipment thereof, regarding the said?
article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and?
misleading in that they represented that the said cans contained one full?
gallon, one full half gallon, one full quarter gallon, or one full eighth gallon?
of the article, as the case might be, and that the said shipment consisted of?
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 the said cans contained?
one full gallon, one full half gallon, one full quarter gallon, or one full eighth?
gallon of the article, as the case might be, and that the said shipment con??
sisted of olive oil, whereas, in fact and in truth, each of said cans did not?
contain the amount so declared on the labels but did contain a less amount,?
and the said shipment did not consist of olive oil but was a mixture composed?
in whole or in part of an oil other than olive oil.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to all of the said product for the?
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 March 12, 1923, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the information,?
and the court imposed a fine of $300.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.