Kingsbury County independent. (DeSmet, Kingsbury County, S.D.) 1894-1929, 1911-01-27

Distortion No. 4 rated that we have
been accustomed 70 advertise G~rape-Nuts
and Postum as "cure-alls for everything.
mas never been the policy of this
Company to advertise Grape-Nuts or Pos
Sum to cure anything.
We saw that In eases where coffee disa-
xrees and is causing sickness it's dismissal
will remove the cause Of the trouble. and
we suggest the use Of Postum for the
se..s= .aas a furnishes a hot palatable
s~pcrnfng beverage, and contains natural
elements from the grain which can Do
used By nature to assist in rebuilding
asrvc centers that coffee may have broken
DOWN
likewise Grape-Nuts food does not
gure anything, but 1t does assist nature
tremendously in rebuilding, provided the
sndigestibie food that has been used Ia
discontinued and Grape-Nuts taken In its
place.
Charge No. 2 states that the passage
of the National Food q Drugs Act com
peNed IA to drop from the packages some
assertions regarding the nutritive value
Of Grape Nuts.
We BaSe never been rcompeIleds 70
make any changa
Since the beginning it has been q univer~
s3l rule to print clearly on every package
&nctly what the contents are made OF:
Before the passage Of the Pure Food
Law the packages stated that Grape-Nuts
food was made Of wheat and barley.
We did not esteem the small amount
of salt and yeast as Of value enough TO
speak of, but after the new Law came
Ga we became as technical as the off,
atsls 1T Washington and added the words
Ayeast" and salt" although we have
90 recollection Of being asked to.
We believed that our statement that
s6rnpe-Nuts viii supply elements to nour-
Cab the brain and nerve ccnters Ia trus
and bring authorities TO support tho fact.
Come state chemist0 believed this .
,xross cxaggeration and inasmuch as the
Food Dept. at Washington could easily
harass gr0cers. pending q trial on the
disputed question. we concluded that
much the better way would be to elm
tnxtc from our packages such claims.
however certain we may be that tina
alsins are true.
Another statement objected 10 read M
Enilows.
ssThe Evrtem viii ahsorb q greater
amount 81 nourishment from one pound
ct CRAM :.= 1.I from ten pounds of
fneat. wheat, oats. or bread
Some Department chemists decefve
themselves as well as the public
~Calor:edD il the word which defines q
cnit Of heat determined by the amount
necessary TO raise one kilogram OF water
one degree ~centigrade. On this basis q
table OF ~calories Ii prepared showing the
percentage Of different kinds Of food.
Butter shows $50; Grape-Nuts 3.96;
milk 0.70. Remember the statement on
the package spoke Of the nourishment Che
svstem would ahsorb, but did not speak o
lhe ~calcries Of heat contained in It. fos
she heat is not nourishment. and the
sourishment cannot be judged by tbs
humber Of heat units. notwithstanding
he fact that certain chemists would have
She public believe so.
As an illustration: Attempt to feed q
man sixty days on butter alone, vita Its
800 ~calories. The man would die be
fore the experiment had run sixty days
Then. take GrapeNuts with 500 and
milk with 0.70,-the two combined equxl
ay06-a6cut one-half the number OF calo
ries contained in butter. The man fed fol-
sixtv DAYS on this food would be vel
nouriahed. and could live not only sixty