Consumer Law LibrarySearchBy decadeBy respondentBy topicBy outcomeDataAbout

Calumet Baking Powder Company

Volume 13 · 13 F.T.C. 3

Citation
13 F.T.C. 3
Docket
1127
Complaint
1924-02-26
Decision
1929-06-12
Document type
final order
Case type
consumer protection
Industry
baking powder manufacturing
Relief
cease_and_desist
Source
Original volume PDF
Original PDF
This decision as a PDF

deceptive advertisingproduct labeling

Cite this decision

Calumet Baking Powder Company, 13 F.T.C. 3 (1929). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v013-0002

Report an error in this record (decision id v013-0002)

Order status: unknown. Sunset may be extended by the latest qualifying federal-court complaint alleging an order violation; complaints, dismissal/appeal outcomes, and respondent-specific extensions are not fully tracked.

Cited by 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

In the Martrer or CALUMET BAKING POWDER COMPANY COMPLAINT (SYNOPSIS), FINDINGS AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEO, 5 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1014. Docket 1127. Complaint, Feb. 26, 19241—Dectsion, June 12, 1929 Where a corporation engaged in the manufacture of baking powder; in Promoting the sale of its product through salesmen and demonstrators, who systematically covered and recovered assigned territories in large numbers as required satisfactorily to sustain the sale of the product and thus “demonstrated” whole States, Employed the so-called cold water giass test of its powder and those of its competitors, before retail and wholesale grocers or dealers and thelr customers, bakers, chefs, and managers or owners of cafés, restaurants and hotels, department stores and cooking or demonstrating schools, housewives, and the purchasing and consuming public, together with talks, representations, and statements to show and claim the superiority of its said powder over competitive products by reason of its alleged quick and sustained action irrespective of oven and other conditions, ag demonstrated by tha rising or effervescence of its own product to the top of the glass and beyond, upon the addition of cold or room temperature water thereto, and/or the relative stability of the resulting foaming effervescence, in contrast with results secured from competitive powders, which In either one or both of the foregoing respects fell short, and thereby allegedly indicated corresponding shortcomings of said powders, in being too slow, or fast, or not sustained, in thelr action, and thus responsible for s0ggy or fallen bread, biscuits, ete., and unsatisfactory or unwholesome results; The facts belng that the amount of effervescence of the various powders was dependent on the chemical reaction from the particular acids employed and the relative stability of its own mixture was due to inclusion in the product of a small proportion of dried white of egg (to which product said ingredient added nothing in the way of carbon dioxlde strength or leavening power or efficiency), action of said powder in the test was in nowise comparable to the action taking place In baking and cooking, the test afforded no criterion whatever as regards size, character or uniformity of wee ‘ Amended, Nov. 21, 1925.

FINDINGS AND ORDERS, JUNE 12, 1929, TO MAY 4, 1930

· 13 F.T.C. 5 →