Springfield daily republic. [volume] (Springfield, O. [Ohio]) 1887-1888, 1888-02-24
BAKING POWDERS AGAIN.

Food Comm oner Hurst Commended
for His Report-A Letter OF Thanks
from the Royal Baking Powder Com
pany, and an Oner to Distribute the
Report to Every Housekeeper in the
State-Dlsreputable Attempts to Garb lie
the Facts.
General 5. II. Hurst. Columbus. Ohio. State
Dairy and Food Commissioner:
DEAR SIR: We have read with pleasure
your letter to the Columbus, Ohio, State
Journal. criticising the use of your official
circular No. upon the composition of
baking powders sold In Ohio. The service
you have In this letter rendered to the pub
lie in exposing the dishonest methods EN-
ployed by divers baking powder makers,
who by habit faIsify facts for advertising
purposes, is only second in importance to
that rendered by you and Prof. Weber in
your most complete and valuable exposures
Of the inferiority and impurities of the
baking powders which these same manu-
fscturers make.
Your report was very severe document
against the majority Of the baking powders
because il so fearless'y showed up their
sdulteratiOns. You lay emphasis upon the
fact 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 re
nowned chemists I'm the land besides spend
ing large amounts of money in the effort to
make an article that shall be the best Of its
iii tuhn nf fha
highest strength, and that shall leave the
smallest possible residuum In the food. The
tact that we have succeeded so well that
you find the Royal greatly purer than any
other powder In the country is exceedingly
gratifying to us. and we thank you sincere
ly for so imparfially stating 1t.
We have referred to these portions Of
pur report in order TO make more clear to
you the extent TO which it has been garbled
and falsifed by the manufacturers Of those
powders which the facts you give have so
severely condemned.
Your report seems 20 have been grossly
garbled by the manufacturer of DIR. Prices
baking powder. He publishes boldly, in
quotation marks, IS from your report,
whole paragraph. not word OF which was
yours. He says that you report lone of
the baking powders contains powerful
and unclean gas-produciDg substance origi-
naliy derived from animal excrement."
which you did not; that you report his
baking powder free from said drug. and
recommended by government chemists,
food analysis, etc. as the strongest and
most healthful, which you likewise did not
and could not. because it is not recon-
mended by any government chemist nor
used by the government. You did report
his baking powder to contain impurities to
the extent of 1866 per cent Of its entire
weight, and four other powders were found
superior to 1t In purity, while 1t was the
fifth on the list In strength. Such flagrant
abuse of an official paper In pretending to
quote, while distorting and misrepresenting
your official circular as it did, were criticised
by you in fitting terms.
The manufacturer of Cleveland's baking
powder also went into the garbling busi-
ness. He deliberately states that his pow
der Is placed at the head Of the list (whsre,
as you know. you placed the Royal, Cleve-
lands being fOurth); that it produces the
largest amount Of carbOnIc acid gas, which
Is equally false, for your report shows
powder with thirty-six per cent. impurity
ahead of 1t in strength; and he altogether
omits from his pretended repitition Of
your report the fact, emphasized by
you as most important that his pow
der contains 10 Is per cent. of impurities,
of tsrtrate of potassium and
iartrate Of sodium rochelle salts), mOis |
ture, etc. These wicked distortions and
of your circular, evil |
IDENTIFY intended to falsify your report and
break the effect OF the facts therein which |
expose his powder as impure and OF in |
terior strength, We are glad to know did |
most justly excite your highest indigna- |
don.
We have done something to give your |
report cir, vi lti0n; but its statements was so |
to the Royal Baking Powder, |
placing 1t as they did at the head Of the |
whole list and the analysis showing 1t so
much superior of all others in purity, that !
here could have been no inducement on |
our part for misrepresenting its facts, and |
ion of your document and the comments |
.hereen you cannot ind single Il state |
nent. |
We deem your circular the most import |
mt exhibit upon the baking powder ques-
ion lately published, and shall be glad to |
lid you in giving 1t the widest possible cir |
,ulaticn. We hope that every one will |
'end to you for circular No. 6, and If you |
AN properly do so we shall be pleased to |
lave you accept our offer to pay the ex- |
,ense of placing a copy in the hands of |
,very housekeeper in Ohio and adjoining |
'tates. Very respectfully yours,
ROYAL BAKING POWDER Co,
New York.