TAKA-DIASTASE AND LIQUID TAKA-DIASTASE
Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry
Some time ago it was decided that a reexamination should be made of Taka-Diastase and Liquid Taka-Diastase, both of which had previously been rejected, to ascertain whether or not the preparations were in accord with the claims made for them by the manufacturers. Accordingly, the matter was referred to a committee of the Council, and an examination of specimens of these two preparations bought in the market was made. The referee’s report, which appears below, according to the usual procedure, and before final confirmation by the Council, was first submitted to the manufacturers of Taka-Diastase for comment. The report recommends that the rejection of Taka-Diastase and Liquid Taka-Diastase be allowed to stand, and that the report be published. Parke, Davis & Co., in their reply, which is given in full below, claim that the report is unjust concerning Liquid Taka-Diastase, because the period of activity of the preparation has been greatly prolonged by reducing the amount of alcohol from 18 per cent. to 10 per cent. and by adding glycerin. They reiterate their claims for the digestive power of Taka-Diastase, but admit that it will not reduce the stated amount of starch to the colorless end-point in ten minutes (the standard method for the valuation of diastase). They further state that they would change the word “digest” on the label to “liquefy.”
The conclusion of the report having been questioned, the entire matter was referred to a member of the Council’s staff of clinical consultants. His report, which, also, is given in full below, states that the material before him was sufficient to decide the matter, and no further tests were necessary. He concludes that the claims of the manufacturers regarding the strength and properties of the material are erroneous and exaggerated; that the literature still sent out by Parke, Davis & Co. is misleading; and that if substitution of the word “liquefy” for “digest” were endorsed by the Council confusion would result which would give an exaggerated and false value to Taka-Diastase. He therefore recommends that the report of the reinvestigation of Taka-Diastase be accepted by the Council and published.
This report of the second referee was referred to Parke, Davis & Co. with the request that they state more definitely the actual amylolytic strength of their preparations. To this they replied that they had no desire to discuss the subject further, or to make any additional statements.
In accordance with the second referee’s recommendations, the Council confirmed its provisional action and voted that the rejection of Taka-Diastase and Liquid Taka-Diastase be allowed to stand, and that the report which appears below be authorized for publication.
W. A. Puckner, Secretary.
REFEREE’S REPORT ON TAKA-DIASTASE AND LIQUID TAKA-DIASTASE
Following is the report of the committee to which was referred the reexamination of Taka-Diastase and Liquid Taka-Diastase: