23903. Adulteration  and misbranding of  salad   oil.    U.   S.   v.   62   Cans   of
Alleged Olive Oil. Default decree of condemnation. Product 
ordered delivered to charitable institutions. (F. & D. no. 32970. 
Sample nos. 67448-A, 7953-A.)
This case involved a product which was found to consist of mixtures of cot- 
tonseed oil and olive oil, or peanut oil and olive oil, which was labeled td 
convey the impression that it was olive oil of foreign origin. The product was 
also short volume.
On or about June 19, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of 
Connecticut, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 62 cans of a 
product, purporting to be olive oil, at New Haven, Conn., alleging that it 
had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about October 23, 1933, by 
Pietro Esposito & Bro., from New York, N. Y., and charging adulteration and 
misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended. The article 
was labeled in part: "La Gloriosa Packing Co.   P. E. & B. Inc."
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that mixtures of cottonseed 
oil and olive oil, and peanut oil and olive oil, had been substituted for imported 
olive oil, which the labeling as a whole implied the article to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " La Gloriosa 
Brand ", " Prize Awarded at Exhibition of Rome 1924 ", " Italy ", " Olio Finis- 
simo", and the designs of a crown, olive branches, and medal carrying the 
Italian national colors, and the prominent words "Lucca Olive Oil", in the 
statement, "Pure and Delicious Oil Composed of Eighty Five Percent Choice
Salad Oil and Fifteen Percent Lucca Olive Oil", appearing on the labeling of 
the product, were misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, 
since they created the impression that the article was imported olive oil; 
whereas it was not. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the 
article purported to be a foreign product when not so; for the further reason 
that the statement on the label, " One Gallon Net", was false and misleading 
and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser; 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 outside of the package, since the 
statement made was incorrect.
On September 11, 1934, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condem- 
nation and forfeiture was entered, and the court ordered that the product be 
delivered to charitable institutions.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary! of Agriculture.