Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1888-03-08
BAKING POWDERS AGAIN.
Food Commissioner Hurst Commend
ed for his Report.

A Letter of Thanks from the Royal
Baking Powder Company, aud an
Ofer to Distribute the Report to
every HOusekeeper in the State
Disreputable Attempts to garbIe the
Facts.
GIN. s. H. HURST, Columbus, Ohio.
State Dairy aud Food Commissioner.
DEAR Sir: We have read with pleasure
your letter to the Columbus, Ohio, State
Journal, criticising the use made of your Of
fetal circular No. upon the composition of
baking powders sold in Ohio. The service
you have in this letter rendered to the public
in exposing the dishonest methods employed
by divers baking powder makers, who by
habit falsify facts for advertising purposes
is only second in importance to that rendered
by you and Prof. Weber in your most COM
plete and valuable exposures of the inferiori-
ty and impurities of the baking powders
which these same manufacturers make.
your report was a very severe document
against the majority of the baking powders,
because 1t so fearlessly showed up their
adulteratlons. You lay emphasis upon the
tact that the baking powder with efficient
strength and least residuum of least hurtful
character is the best baking powder, and
very properly so. We have been making
baking powder for twenty-five years and
have employed many of the most renowned
chemists in the land besides spending large
amounts of money in the effort to make an
article that shall be the best of its kind, per-
fectly pure, wholesome, of the highest
strength and that shall leave the smallest
| possible residuum in the food. The fact
that we have succeeded so we'll that you find
the Royal greatly purer than any other pow
der in the country is exceedingly gratifying
to us, and we thank you sincerely for so
| impartially stating it.
We have referred to these portions of your
| report in order to make more clear to you
the extent to which it has been garbled and
| falsified by the manufacturers of those pow
ders which the facts you give have so severely
condemned.
garbled by the manufacturer of DR.. Prices
baking powder. He publishes boldly, in
quotation marks, as from your report,
whole paragraph, not word of which was
yours. lie says that you report zone of the
DaKlng powders contains powerful and un-
clean .gas-producing substance originally
derived from animal excrement." which
you did not; that you report his baking
powder free from said drug, and recon-
mended by Government chemists, food
analysts, ETC., as the strongest and most
healthful," which you likewise did not and
could not, because it is not recommended by
| any Government chemist nor used by the
Government. You did report his baking
powder to contain impurities to the extent
of 1886 per cent. of its entire weight, and
four other powders we're found superior to it
in purity, while it was the fifth on the list in
strength. Such hagrant abuse of an official
paper in pretending to quote, while distort-
ing and misrepresenting your official circular
as it did, were criticised by you in fitting
terms.
The manufacturer of Clevelands baking
powder also went into the garbling business.
He deliberately states that his powder is
placed at the head of the list (where, as you
know, YOU placed the Royal, Cleveland's be-
! ing fourth:) that it produces the largest
amount of carbonic acid gas, which is equally
false, for your report Shows a powder with
thlrty-six per nj. impurty ahead of 1t in,
strength; and He altogether omits from his
pretended repetition of your report the fact
emphasized by you as most important, that
his powder contains 1918 per cent. of i'm
purites, consisting of tartrate of potassium
and tartrate of sodium (rochelle salts),
moisture, etc. These wicked distortions and
Misrepresentation of your circular, evident
ly intended to falsify your report and break
the effect of the facts therein which exposed
his powder as impure and of inferior
strength, we are glad to know did most
justly excite your highest indignation.
We have done something to give your re-
port circulation; but its statements were SC
favorable to the Royal Baking Powder, plac-
ing it as they did at the heard of the whole
list, and the analyses showing it SO much the
superior of all others in purity, that there
could have been no inducement on our part
for misrepresenting its facts, and we are glad
to know that in our condensation of your
document and the comments thereon you
cannot find single misstatement.
We deem your circular the most important
exhibit upon the baking powder question
, lately published, and shall be glad to aid yot
in giving it the widest possible circulation
We hope that every one will send to you fol
circular No. G, and if you can properly do sc
we shall be pleased to have you accept oul
, offer to pay the expense of placing a copy ir
the hands of every housekeeper in Ohio ant
adjoining states.
Very respectfully yours,
, ROYAL BAKING POWDER CO.,
New YcRK.