Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-11-19
WHITE FLOUR PLEADS
Label Will Give It Bad Name,
Is C0ntended.
PROCESS IS DEFENDED
Manufacturer of Machinery Upholds
Righteousness of Device.
JOHN E. MITCHELL ON STAND
No Chemicals Used and No Deteri-
grafton by Process, He Maintains.
Other Witnesses Heard.
JOHN E. MITCHELL ON STAND

| Friends of bleached -four continued to
make themselves heard before Secretary
| Wilson and his board of experts in pure
| food this morning. The principal witness
| was John E Mitchell, manager for The
manufacturers of the bleaching machinery
| which has caused all the stir.
In addition to posing as the friend OF
| the housewives, the millers gave long
| and detailed explanation of how flour is
made how il is bleached, and showed SIX
| samples of -four taken from one mill
| The board was interested in the samples,
examining them carefully and asking
| many questions.
Milling Process Described.
1t was shown that several streams OF
flour come from a single mill, and that
each stream has a distinct color OF It's
own. Mr.. Mitchell placed six little heaps
of flour before the board and went INTO
long history Of the milling industry,
showing how the old-fashioned milestone
produced but one kind.
This kind was similar to whole Wheat.
or graham flour The introduction or
rollers made it possible to separate oil
ferent grades as the wheat passed INTO
the mill.
The discussion this morning centered
| for time on whether the first stream, or
whitest flour, was more desirable than the
other streams or grades. Mr.. Mitchell
claimed that while the first stream was
whitest. some of the other streams were
more deSira BILE, but that many consumers
| want the whitest flour.
He was asked whether by bleaching the
other streams they could be made as
| white as the first stream, thus making
| it possible to deceive the public. His
answer was long and technical, but he
| emphasized the fact that no one familiar
with the trade would ask such a ques-
ton. because bleaching inferior -four
brought out the inferiorities to marked
degree.
His Process Righteous.
He was asked whether he knew of any
millers using the bleaching process to
deceive. He answered that his process
was not a whitewash, and that millers
who made poor flour could not use the
bleaching process, as it showed their
product up in bad light.
DR.. Wiley did not ask so many ques-
tons this morning as he did yesterday.
He had few patent papers before him
covering inventions of Mr.. Mitchell, and
one paper covering the bleaching pro-
cess, invented by a Mr.. Alsopp.
On one of the Mitchell inventions he
caused the witness some embarrassment
and brought laughter from the millers
pISSSHt. IL was ali OIu uCNiSc, "ilSil,
the millers say. Mr.. Mitchell is not proud
of. and covers process for putting back
into the flour the 'nutty" flavor and
aroma which is lost when the chaff and
offal of the kernels is taken away.
DR.. Wiley wanted to know why SO much
care is taken to separate the offal from
the flour and then to put some of it back
again. Mr.. Mitchell endeavored to side
step. DR.. Wiley was insistent. Finally
Mr.. Mitchell had to join in the laugh
with the rest of the millers.
Alsopp Device Taken Up.
Dr. Wiley put the paper away then, and
| took up the Alsopp patent which affects
every bread maker, nasmuch as practi-
| cally every bit of -four used in the home
| is bleached by that process. He asked
whether it was similar to a certain
chemical process for bleaching flour. in
which nitric acid was used. Mr.. Mitchell
said 1t was not.
| Then Dr. Wiley asked about an injunc-
| ton which Mr.. MitchelIs company had
| obtained against the chemical process on
the ground that 1t was an Infringement
His object was to bring out that the
chemical and probably harmful process
was the same as the Asopp method of
bleaching by electrically modified air.
Mr. Mitchell would not admit it. He
said the injunction had been obtained
| under a patent for a chemical process
used In manufacturing.
0. M. Friend of the Northern Millers
Association talked on bleached -four for
half an hour. In answer to a question
from DR.. Wiley. he stated that while
practically all millers bleach flour and the
trade demand it, it could be abolished
yet the milling industry would take a
backward step in so doing. Mr.. Friend
was another one who laid the demand for
whittier -four at the housewives door
Nathan F. SchOennR of Illinois teSti-
fed that every one he knew of wanted
bleached -four. but that the scare on ac-
count of the pure food law would make
it undesirable to place distinctive label
on bleached flour. He was of opinion
that such a label would cast much OPP
probrium on flour and that people would
believe it was tainted painted Or adul-
| treated
Tomorrow 1t is expected that the side
| of those opposed to bleached flour will
l,a,,o hnir i,nrni ra0a