15433. Adulteration  and  Misbranding of  olive   oil.    V.   S.  v.  Albert  Paee 
(Pace & Bonn).    Plea   of guilty.    Fine, $7 and  costs.     (F. & I>. No.
19755.    I. S. Nos   6085-x, 6086-x.)
On June 7, 19-26, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode Island, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court 
of the United States for said district an informatJon against Albert Pare, 
trading as Pace & Sons, Providence, R. I., alleging shipment by said defendant, 
in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on or about August 7, 1925, 
from the State of Rhode Island into the State of Pennsylvania, of quantities of 
olive oil which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in 
part: (Cans) "Pure Italian Olive Oil Cav. Rocco Pace & Figli Ortona a Mare 
(Italy) Contents One Half Gallon (or "Contents One Full Gallon") Products 
of Italy * * H- rphig 0}i is our owil production and is guaranteed to be pure 
under any chemical analysis.   It is used for cooking and medicinal use,"
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a substance, to wit, eottonseed oil, had been mixed and packed therewith so as 
to lower, reduce, and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been 
substituted in large part for pure olive oil, which the said article purported 
to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the article was 
sold under and by a name recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, and 
differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as determined by 
the test laid down in said pharmacopoeia official at the time of investiga- 
tion, in that it was a mixture composed in large part of oil obtained from cot- 
tonseed, whereas said pharmacopoeia provides that olive oil shall be obtained 
from the ripe fruit of Olea eiufopaea, L. and the standard of strength, quality, 
and purity of the article was not declared on the container thereof.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Pure 
Italian Olive Oil," "Ortoha a Mare (Italy)," "Products of Italy," "This 
oil is our own production and is guaranteed to be pure under any chemical 
analysis," borne on the cans containing the article, together with the statement 
"Contents One Full'Gallon," borne on the cans containing a portion of the 
said article, were false and misleading in that the said statements represented 
that the article was pure olive oil, that it was a foreign product, to wit, an olive 
oil produced in Italy, and that the cans containing the said portion contained 1 
full gallon thereof, 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 pufe olive 
oil, that it was a foreign product, and that each of the cans containing the said 
portion contained 1 full gallon thereof, whereas it was not pure olive oil, but 
was a product composed in large part of cottonseed oil, it Was not a foreign 
product, but was a domestic product, to wit, -an article composed in large part 
df cottdnseed oil produced' in the United States of America, and each of the cans 
containing the said portion contained less tbafn 1 full gallon of the article. 
Misbranding was alleged for the furthet reason that the article was composed 
in large 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; for the further reason that it was falsely branded' as to the country ift 
which it was manufactured in that it was branded as an olive oil .manufactured 
and produced at Ortona a Mare, Ita'y, whereas it. was an article manufactured 
and produced in the United States of America,' and for the further reason l;hat 
the statements, to wit, "Italian Olive Oil," "Ortona a Mare (Italy)," an'd' 
"Products of Italy," borne on thetcan labels, purported the article to be a 
foreign product when not .?0. Misbranding was alleged with respect 'to ? a 
portion of the product 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 October 7, 1927, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $7 and costs.
W. M. JAJRDINE, Secretary of Agricultwe.