Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry and Laboratory Contribution on Which It Is Based [K] See also preceding reports on Hagee’s Cordial and Wampole’s Preparation; also Waterbury’s Compound once more, p. 291; The Comparative Nutrient Value of Cod Liver Oil and Cod Liver Oil Cordials, p. 422. The following report has been adopted by the Council and its publication directed W. A. Puckner, Secretary. _To the Council_:--Your committee on pharmacology has read with interest the contribution from the Association’s laboratory on Waterbury’s Metabolized Cod-Liver Oil Compound. The report shows that misleading and false statements are made in regard to the composition of the product and also that exaggerated and unwarranted claims are made for its therapeutic value. In view of the attempt of the Waterbury Chemical Co. to create a false impression in regard to the therapeutic value of the composition of its product, it is recommended that the following report be adopted and published: The Council believes that there is a preponderance of evidence to indicate that whatever therapeutic value cod-liver oil has, that value depends chiefly, if not entirely, on its fat (oil). In the opinion of the Council, the word cod-liver oil should not be used in connection with any preparation unless it consists to a large extent (25 per cent. or more) of cod-liver oil. Since Waterbury’s Metabolized Cod-Liver Oil Compound contains no appreciable quantity of cod-liver oil, the name is incorrect and misleading, and as a cod-liver oil preparation it is believed to be wholly valueless. The Council has previously voted that Waterbury’s Cod-Liver Oil Compound be refused recognition because of conflict with Rules 1 and 6.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 9, 1909._) [CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CHEMICAL LABORATORY OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION] Waterbury’s Metabolized Cod-Liver Oil Compound W. A. Puckner and L. E. Warren A full page advertisement of Waterbury’s Metabolized Cod-Liver Oil Compound appeared in the _Iowa Medical Journal_, March 15, 1909, in the form of a letter purporting to give the results of an analysis of the product made for the firm by a Chicago chemist. In this letter-advertisement the chemist states at the outset that the results of his examination “are somewhat at variance with the statements made in The Journal.” These statements he quotes as follows: 1. It is a clear liquid and no globules of oil are seen under the microscope. It is therefore not an emulsion. 2. It is of acid reaction when mixed with water and remains clear when strongly acidified. Hence it does not contain a soap, and is not a saponification of fat. 3. It mixes with water without precipitation, hence, it can not contain more than traces of a fatty acid.