1666. Adulteration  and misbranding of  olive   oil.     IT.  S.  v.  89  Gallon  Cans, 2
Half-Gallon Cans, and 23 Quart Cans of Olive Oil. Default decree of 
condemnation and order that samples be delivered to the Government; 
remainder ordered distributed to charitable institutions.     (F. D.  C. No.
3400.    Sample Nos. 34671-E to 34676-E, incl.)
This product was represented in its labeling as olive oil, but it consisted es- 
sentially of cottonseed oil and contained little or no olive oil. The product 
in 87 of the 89 gallon cans contained artificial flavoring, and that in the remain- 
ing 2 gallon cans contained artificial coloring.
On or about November 20, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of 
Connecticut filed a libel against 89 gallon cans, 2 half-gallon cans, .and 23 quart 
cans of olive oil at Danbury, Conn., alleging that the article had been shipped in 
interstate commerce on or about August 8, 28, and 30 and September 7, 1940. 
by Ciroco Oil Co., Inc., from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it was adul- 
terated and misbranded. It was labeled in part variously: (Cans) "Roberta 
Brand," "Puglia Brand," "Colomba Brand," "Lola Brand," "Italia Brand," or 
"Superfine Olive Oil A. Sasso."
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a product consisting essen- 
tially of cottonseed oil and containing little or no olive oil, a portion of which 
contained artificial flavoring and a portion of which contained artificial coloring, 
had been substituted wholly or in part for olive oil, which it purported to be. 
The portion contained in the gallon cans was alleged to be adulterated further in 
that inferiority had been concealed by the addition of artificial flavoring or 
artificial coloring, and in that artificial flavoring or artificial coloring had been 
added thereto or mixed and packed therewith so as to make it appear better 
or of greater value than it was.
It was alleged to be misbranded (all lots) in that it was sold under the 
name of another food. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the 
following statements and designs were false and misleading in that they were 
incorrect: (49 gallon cans) "Pure Olive Oil Imported from Lucca Toscana Italy 
[design of olive branches and olives] * * *. This Olive Oil is guaranteed 
to be absolutely pure under chemical analysis [similar statements in Italian] 
Imported Pure Olive Oil"; (21 gallon cans) "Superfine Pure Olive Oil Im- 
ported from Lucca Italy [design of a crown, shield, and olive branches] 
* * * This Olive Oil is guaranteed to be absolutely pure under any chemical 
analysis. Recommended for table use and medicinal purposes [similar statements 
in Italian] Pure Olive Oil"; (5 gallon cans) "Imported Olive Oil * * * 
Lucca Toscana Italia [design of an olive tree and olive branches] * * * This 
Olive Oil imported from the Italian Riviera is guaranteed to be absolutely pure 
under any chemical analysis [similar statements in Italian] Pure Imported 
Olive Oil"; (9 gallon cans) "Superfine Olive Oil * * * Imported Product 
[design of an olive branch] Pure Olive Oil Imported [similar statements in 
Italian]"; (3 gallon cans, 2 half-gallon cans, and 23 quart cans) "The Olive 
Oil contained in this can is pressed from fresh picked high grown fruit, packed 
by the grower under the best sanitary condition, and guaranteed to be abso- 
lutely pure under any chemical analysis [similar statements in Italian and design 
of an olive branch and gold medals] Pure Imported Olive Oil"; (2 gallon 
cans) "Supreme Olive Oil Imported Lucca Italia [design of olive branches, 
Italian flag, and shield, and gold medals] * * * The purity of this Olive 
Oil is guaranteed under chemical analysis and we recommend it for table 
and medicinal uses [similar statements in Italian] Imported Pure Olive Oil." 
The product in the gallon cans was alleged to be misbranded further in that 
it was an imitation of another food and its label did not bear in type of uniform 
size and prominence the word "imitation" and, immediately thereafter, the 
name of the food imitated; and in that it contained artificial flavoring (87 
cans) and artificial coloring (2 cans)., but did not bear labeling stating that fact.
On February 21, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemnation 
was entered and it was ordered that 1 gallon of the product be delivered to 
this Agency as a sample and the remainder distributed to charitable institutions. 
On March 14, 1941, the decree was amended to provide that this Agency be 
furnished samples from each brand.