COKRESPONDENCE WITH MANUFACTURERS. 101 



Eeplying to your circular letter of the 11th, and in reference to the examination 

 of various items of our product, would say that we * * ^ feel warranted in mak- 

 ing the following general statement: During the past three years we have used no 

 glucose whatever in the jelly that we have made. In the same period of time we 

 have used no salicylic acid either in jelly or jam. ^ * * jf your examinations, 

 as shown by your report, have been carefully made, we are at a loss to understand 

 the occasion that would warrant the findings unless you have gotten hold of 

 extremely old items produced by us, and even then in some instances we can not 

 understand the o^x-asion of the reports being as you state. We feel that in all fair- 

 ness to us, analyses should be made of new goods or those of more recent production. 

 ^ * * After discontinuing the use of salicylic, we may have had up to the next 

 season some goods that had been prepared with it, but in reconditioning these we 

 used no more salicylic, but attempted to volatilize this, and then used benzoate for 

 the direct preservative. 



Curtice Brothers Company. 



Your letter of the 11th instant received, and we note all you have to say. We use 

 no starch whatever in any of our product; if it shows any starch it must come through 

 the glucose. In the item of jam Xo. 20227 we note that you show no sugar; there is 

 about 10 per cent granulated sugar in our cheap jams. We have discontinued using 

 benzoate of soda in our jams, as we knew that the Pennsylvania food law had ruled 

 against it. 



The E. G. Dailey Company. 



We are in receipt of your circular letter of the 11th, and we note your report on 

 analysis No. 202.37 of our Fort Henry brand apple butter. We suppose, of course, 

 that your report is correct, excepting it does not show the percentage of sugar. We 

 use a certain percentage of sugar in this apple butter, but do not use starch in any of - 

 our fruit products. 



Geo. K. McMechex & Son. 



We are in receipt of your favor of the 11th instant advising us of the result of an 

 analysis made of our apple jelly, which was presumably bought in open market, as 

 we have no record in our office of having sent you any. 



As stated by you, there is no comment to make, except to explain the presence of 

 starch, which evidently is in so small quantity that no record was made of its per- 

 centage. This starch is undoubtedly due to the character of the apples used (not as 

 a thickener), as we have made no change in our recipe for several years, or, possibly, 

 to imperfect filtering of the apple juice, or both. We have endeavored to overcome 

 this (only) objection, but have not succeeded so far. We shall continue our efforts, 

 however, to remedy this phenomenon. 



Dodsox-Brat N Mfg. Co. 



In reply to your letter of November 11, would say that the analysis given our 

 products is undoubtedly correct in every case, and excepting' the strawberry jam. 

 No. 20182, entirely satisfactory to us. * ^ * AYe have never put salicylic acid 

 into strawberry jam except in one instance, and it evidently so happens that your 

 sample has been selected from this particular lot. Last season we became sold out 

 of strawberry jam, and to supply the demand we used some berries which had been 

 barreled with sugar and preservaline and carried until midwinter. This is the only 

 case in forty years of packing in which we have done this, and it will })erhaps not be 

 necessary again in the next forty years. It is nuich more satisfactory to make the jam 

 from fresh berries, and certainly does not need any jireservative in making. We 

 can only say that we regret that the sample which you hapj^ened to get must have 

 been taken from this lot. 



OxEiDA CoMMiNiTV, Limited. 



