2515. Adulteration and misbranding of oil. IT. S. v. 46 Cans and 10 Jugs of Oil. 
Default decree of condemnation and destruction., (F. D. C. No. 3842. 
Sample Nos. 33950-E, 33951-E, 33952-E.)
Analysis showed that this product consisted essentially of cottonseed oil arti- 
ficially colored with an uncertified coal-tar color and artificially flavored to 
simulate olive oil.
On February 19, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey 
filed a libel against 46 cans and 10 jugs of oil at Bayonne, N. J., alleging that 
the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about January 31,1941, 
by Roma Oil Packing Co. from Brooklyn, N. Y.; and charging that it was 
adulterated and misbranded. The product in the cans was labeled in part: 
"One Gallon Net Extra Fine Oil Superfine Brand"; or "One Gallon Royal Brand 
Extra Quality Fine Oil."   The 10 jugs were unlabeled.
The article was all alleged to be adulterated in that inferiority had been 
concealed by the addition of artificial flavor and artificial color; in that artificial 
flavor and artificial color had been added thereto or mixed or packed therewith 
so as to make it appear better or of greater value than it was; and in that it 
contained a coal-tar color other than one from a batch that had been certified 
in accordance with the law.
The product contained in the cans was alleged to be misbranded (1) in that 
the word "Oil," which to Italian-speaking people means olive oil, in combination 
with the statements in Italian, (Superfine brand) "Prodotto Garantito," "So- 
praffirio"; and (Royalbrand) "MarcaReale * * * Finissima Qualita * * * 
Olio Find," and the designs 'of a royal crown, shields showing castles, etc., 
and a stalk of what appeared to be olive leaves, borne on the label, were false 
and misleading since they conveyed the impression that the article was im- 
ported Italian olive oil; (2) in that it was an imitation of another food, olive 
oil, and the labels did not bear, in type of uniform size and prominence, the 
word "Imitation" and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated; 
(3) in that the labels did not contain the name and place of business of the 
manufacturer, packer, or distributor; (4) in that the labels did hot bear the 
common or usual name of the food; (5) in that the labels did not bear the 
common or usual name of each ingredient of which the article was fabricated; 
and <6)[ ,in that the article contained artificial flavoring and artificial coloring 
and thrombus. did hesitate that; fact. The product in the jugs was alleged 
to be misbranded (1) in that it 'Was in package fprin and did not "bear a label 
containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or dts-
tributor and an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents;, (2) in 
that it did not bear a label showing the common or usual name of the food; 
(3) in that it did not bear a label showing the common or usual names of the 
ingredients from which it was fabricated; and (4) in that it contained artificial 
flavoring and artificial coloring and did not bear labeling stating that fact.
On April 18/1941 (amending decree of March 29, 1941), no claimant having 
appeared, judgment of condemnation was entered and the product was ordered 
destroyed.