Six years later it was still widely advertised with the same irrational claims. A referee (A) therefore examined Lactopeptine (powdered) for the Council in 1913, and confirmed the previous findings. The referee’s report was published in The Journal, Aug. 2, 1913, p. 358. Nearly four months after this publication, the manufacturer protested against the report, maintaining, contrary to the findings of the Council, that Lactopeptine possesses pancreatic activity and contains “loosely combined” hydrochloric acid. Referee A therefore repeated his examination, and a second referee (B), independently, examined specimens of Lactopeptine (powder) purchased on the open market for the purpose shortly before. A few specimens examined by these two referees showed a slight tryptic activity; most of them showed none. The amount of hydrochloric acid present was insignificant. The reports of the two referees were referred to the manufacturers, who again protested vehemently against these findings, this time on the ground that the specimens were old. The manufacturers also cited the work of three chemists to disprove the findings of the referees, and demanded that the Council reexamine Lactopeptine, making use of fresh specimens. The Council refused for the following reasons: 1. So long as the packages of Lactopeptine are not dated, the activity of specimens known to be fresh is of no practical importance. The activity of the actual market supply is the only question of interest to the profession. The only fair test is that made on specimens representative of the product sold to the ultimate consumer. 2. The evidence presented by the manufacturers did not warrant a reexamination, since the work of two of the chemists cited substantially corroborates the results obtained by the Council’s referees from the fresher specimens. The figures for tryptic activity obtained by the third chemist cited by the manufacturers could not be accepted by the Council, since it was at variance with all other known results of investigations of Lactopeptine. 3. As stated at the outset, whatever the tryptic activity of the mixture, it is therapeutically useless. A demonstration of tryptic activity in a mixture containing both pepsin and pancreatin is of merely theoretical interest. Such activity, of course, cannot be expected, even on theoretical grounds, in liquid mixtures like Elixir Lactopeptine. The Council therefore again declared Lactopeptine (powder and tablets) and Elixir Lactopeptine ineligible for New and Nonofficial Remedies and authorized publication of the following statement. W. A. Puckner, Secretary _THE COUNCIL’S REPORT_ Lactopeptine powder (New York Pharmacal Association, Yonkers, N. Y.) was examined by the Council in 1907. At that time it was claimed to contain