1354. Adulteration and misbranding of olive oil.    V. S. v. 6 Cases of Olive Oil.
Default  decree  of  condemnation  and destruction.     (F.  D.  C.  No.  3393. 
Sample No. 2697-B,)
This product was represented in its labeling to be olive oil; whereas it con- 
sisted of an artificially flavored and colored oil similar to soya bean oil, contain- 
ing little or no olive oil.   It was also short of the declared volume.
On November 18, 1940, the United. States attorney for the District of Massa- 
chusetts filed a libel against six cases of olive oil at Boston, Mass., alleging 
that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about November 
7, 1940, by Tony Romano from Pawtucket, R. I.; and charging that it was 
adulterated and misbranded.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that an artificially flavored 
and colored oil similar to soya bean oil containing little or no olive oil had been 
substituted wholly or in part for olive oil, which it purported to be; in that 
inferiority had been concealed by the addition of artificial flavor and color; 
and in that artificial flavor and color had been added thereto or mixed or 
packed therewith so as to make it appear better or of greater value than it was.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements "Imported 
from Italy Italian Product Virgin Olive Oil Imported Superfine Brand Lucca 
Prodotto Italiano Vergine Olio Oliva Importato Marca Soprafinno Lucca Finest 
Quality This imported olive oil is guaranteed to be absolutely pure under chem- 
ical analysis. * * * Garanzia della qualita Questo olio saliva importato e 
garantito assolutamente puro sotto analisi chimica," were false and misleading 
as applied to an artificially flavored and colored oil similar to soya bean oil, 
containing little or no olive oil.
It was alleged to be misbranded further in that the statement "Net Contents 
One Gallon" was false and misleading since it was incorrect; in that it did not 
bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents; in that it was offered 
for sale under the name of another food; in that it was an imitation of another 
food and its label failed to bear, in type of uniform size and prominence, the 
word "imitation" and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated; 
in that it was in package form and did not contain the name and place of 
business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and in that it bore or 
contained artificial flavoring and artificial coloring but failed to bear labeling 
stating that fact.
On December 30, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condem- 
nation was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
OLEOMARGARINE