24570. Misbranding of salad oil.     U. S. v. Geraldi-Dorman, Inc.     Plea of guilty.
Fine, $200.     (F. & D. no. 33903.    Sample nos. 67413-A, 67422-A, 67423-A.)
This case was based on shipments of a product consisting principally of 
cottonseed oil that was labeled to create the impression that it was pure olive 
oil. Sample cans taken from both shipments of the product were found to 
contain less than the declared volume.
On February 28, 1935, the United States attorney for the Eastern District 
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against Geraldi-Dorman, Inc., Brooklyn, N. Y., al- 
leging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as 
amended, on or about January 16 and March 6, 1934, from the State of New 
York into the State of New Jersey of quantities of salad oil which was mis- 
branded. The article was labeled in part: "Oil Red Star * * * Olio Finis- 
simo Per Insalata * * * Packed by Geraldi-Dorman, Inc. Contents One 
Gallon Net [or "Contents Half Gallon Net"]." The gallon cans bore the state- 
ment: "Vegetable Oil 85% Colored and Flavored with Pure Olive Oil." The 
half-gallon size bore in lieu of the said statement the statement "Salad Oil 
Flavored Slightly with Pure Olive Oil."
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Olio Finis- 
simo Per Insalata * * * Pure Olive Oil", borne on the label in large con- 
spicuous type, and the statements, "Contents One Gallon Net" and "Contents 
Half Gallon Net", also borne on the labels, were false and misleading, and 
for the further reason that the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead 
the purchaser, since they represented that the article consisted solely of pure 
olive oil, and that the cans contained 1 gallon net or one half gallon net 
thereof; whereas it did not consist solely of pure olive oil, but consisted princi- 
pally of cottonseed oil, and each of a large number of the cans examined con- 
tained less than declared. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that 
the article was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, 
namely, olive oil. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the arti- 
cle 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 April 3, 1935, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court im- 
posed a fine of $200.
W. R. GBEGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.