How you eat is how you live.
Let's eat well together.
Sign up for our useful and inspiring emails.
Get a $10 credit at Provisions,
our new kitchen and home shop, launching soon!
Well played.
You deserve a cookie.
We'll email you about claiming your credit and earning more by inviting friends.
Or Claim Your Credit Now
I would suggest that the amount of baking powder either be reduced or removed. It is a stabilizer as well as acting as a leavening agent though, so perhaps baking soda or cream of tartar could substitute
The lack of aluminum shouldn't make a big difference in your product
It's not aluminum per se that can taste bitter but the compound sodium aluminum sulfate that may have a slight aftertaste. It's included in some brands of baking powder to add extra lift during the baking stage. I haven't done any side by side tests myself (yet) but Rose Beranbaum says she substitutes the two types without significant difference in the finished product.
Both are "double acting" baking powders, which have that 2nd stage, "extra lift" -- I've always used Rumfords or comparable.
Chris is a trusted source on General Cooking
added about 1 year agoBaking powders with aluminum compounds exist because (1) they work and because (2) there are plenty of people who don't notice or complain about the negative effects on taste. Aluminum-free products also work, so no, you won't be missing anything by opting for them.
Maybe I should have written "extra extra" lift during the baking phase.
I've used Rumford's exclusively for more than 20 years, and have no problem with everything rising as it should.