16633. Misbranding of salad oil.    TJ. S. v. Terminal Packing Co.    Plea of
guilty.     Defendant  ordered to pay 8550 in lieu  of costs.     (F. &.  D.
No.   22579.    I.   S.   Nos.   16499-x,   16500-x,   21026-x,  21027-x,   21028-x.)
On November 27, 1928, the United States attorney for the District of Massa- 
chusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis- 
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against the 
Terminal Packing Co., a corporation, Boston, Mass., alleging shipment by said 
company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, in various lots, 
on or about October 24, November 9, and November 12, 1927, respectively, from 
the State of Massachusetts into the State of Rhode Island, of quantities of 
salad oil which was misbranded. The article was labeled in part, variously: 
"0.97% of y2 Gal. or 3% Lbs. Net (or "0.97% of 1 Gal. or 7V2 Lbs. Net") 
Star White Brand Salad Oil * * * Terminal Packing Co. Boston, Mass.;" 
" Net Contents 0.98 of 1 Gal. or 7% Lbs. Net Marca Tre Cavalli Olio Per In- 
salata * * * A Pure Vegetable Oil of Finest Quality For Salads, Cooking, 
Mayonnaise, Etc.;" "Salad Oil Superfine Rosa Brand Pure Salad Oil * * * 
Boston, Mass. Net Contents 0.98 of One Quart or 1% Lbs. (or "Net Contents 
0.98 of Half Gallon or 3% Lbs.")."
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in that 
the statements, to wit, "0.97% of % Gal. or 3% Lbs. Net," "0.97% of 1 Gal. 
or 71/2 Lbs. Net," "Net Contents 0.98 of 1 Gal. or 7% Lbs. Net," 
"Net Contents 0.98 of One Quart or 1% Lbs.," and "Net Contents 
0.98 of Half Gallon or 3% Lbs," as the case might be, borne on the cans 
containing the article, were false and misleading in that the said statements 
represented that the cans contained the amount of the product, declared on the 
label, and for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so 
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the cans contained 
the said declared amount of the product, whereas they did not, but did contain 
a less amount. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the 
article was food in package form and the quantity of the contents was not 
plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On December 17, 1928, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court ordered that the said defendant 
pay the sum of $50 in lieu of costs.
ARTHUR M. HTDE, Secretary of Agriculture.