Northfin food

[kmuda]

Every hobbyist that has fed their tropical fish, foods that contain ethoxyquin, over a lifetime of 10, 15, and in some cases 25+ years, have taken part in a long term feed safety study.

There is currently a goldfish in the UK that is reported to be 38 yrs old, and fed only common goldfish flake food, flakes that with certainty have been preserved with ethoxyquin for its entire life.

What isn't certain is what the breaking point is when feeding fish, where this particular substance can go from a preservative, to a potential toxin. But that is no different than every other substance that goes into a fish food, including common vitamins, even those used for natural food preserving, such as vitamin E. A concept that is apparently lost on many......

I have personally never had an issue with EQ, when used in limited amounts, as in below the current approved level of 150 ppm. As previously stated, I expect that most of the top brands that use this preservative will be below 100 ppm. If someone can prove that at those levels it can cause long term health issues in tropical fish, then I will gladly change my stance on the subject.

Not that I want to go dow this rabbit hole again, but I would assume that 38 year old goldfish lives in a pond, so a good percentage of it's diet is natural. I have a 26 year old Kissing Gourami (in a 55 gallon tank) ad he's been feed ethoxyquin his entire life, but a large percentage of his diet is algae I've encouraged to grow in his tank.... and the EQ levels in his food have likely been low due to feeding veggie/algae based foods.

On the other hand, I've had Oscar after Oscar die around the 8 year mark, and I can't help but believe this is a fish that should live 15-20 years.... and water quality has not been the cause.

But otherwise, I will agree with you. It is impossible to prove EQ has any long term effect on fish because no long term study has ever been, or ever will be, conducted.

Studies do exist demonstrating EQ has at least a negative physiological impact on fish in concentrations of 150ppm (and lower), with the negative results being reduced immunity and pyknosis in the liver.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2008.00577.x/abstract

An April 2014 study (the second most recent I am aware of), conducted on Japanese Seabass, suggests juvenile Japanese Seabass fed a diet containing 50ppm Ethoxyquin grew better than seabass fed a diet containing 150ppm. Those fed a diet containing 150ppm grew better than those fed a diet containing 1350ppmm which, if nothing else identifies a physiological influence.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

In addition, the same study identifies that fish fed a diet containing EQ had a "significantly" lower body lipid content than those that did not. If nothing else, further evidence of a physiological impact.

And the most recent study I am aware of, conducted on ballan wrasse (Labrus bergylta) larvae, indicates a possible negative effect of ethoxyquin (EQ) could be the reason for the reduced growth and increased mortality of wrasse larvae. This study used a maximum EQ concentration of 44ppm and discovered a lower final body weight and higher mortality were related to increased inclusion of EQ,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anu.12225/abstract

Could other issues be involved/blamed in these last two studies? Certainly, for instance, EQ usage could reduce palatability so while it does not have a direct effect, the fish eat less (or not at all) because it taste bad.

But no long term study has ever been conducted, so the statement of "no proof of long term impact" cannot be debated. It's 100% accurate. It cannot be proven differently.

As I stated in communications with Mr. Tepot, it's somewhat a moot point. An irrelevant discussion, concerning NLS at least, considering taking the approach they are in the process of adopting. Hopefully this will result in enough shift in the market that it forces other companies to follow suit.

 

[kmuda]

The EU has apparently removed authorization of further use of Ethoxyquin in animal feeds, declaring their is no evidence of it's safety in animal feed. Safety as in...... up the chain via the feed, to the animals, to us.

http://www.feednavigator.com/Regulation/What-is-the-future-of-ethoxyquin-in-the-EU


The EU's conclusion....

......there was a lack of data to fully assess the safety of the substance, including its metabolites, and the presence of an impurity, p-phenetidine, which is a possible mutagen [substances causing mutations in the genetic material of both animals and humans].

The Parma-based EU risk assessor determined that, as a result of the manufacturing process, p-phenetidine remains in the feed additive.

Feed manufacturers are preparing for an EU Ethoxyquin ban in animal feeds.

The entirety of the most recent EFSA onion ca be found here:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4711

 

[RD.]

That goldfish lived in a small aquarium or bowl, as did Tish, the Guinness Book of Records goldfish that died at the age of 43. It lived in a bowl, and ate flake food as it's staple.


You can post links to papers until you are blue in the face, none of it means a lot with regards to overall safety and long term health when fed to tropical fish, of all life stages, at or below approved levels. I have read them all, including those papers. But somehow you want to extrapolate that data, to help form your opinion that your Oscar fish all died at the 8 yr mark, from consuming EQ? Okay then.

I could post paper after paper all day long demonstrating negative effects on the health of fish when fed vitamin E, vitamin A, and a plethora of other items commonly found in a typical diet. As I stated previously,
there is an old saying among nutritionists; the difference between a nutrient, a drug, and a toxin, is typically the dosage.

Like other fat-soluble vitamins, excess vitamin E is not readily excreted from the body and may also be problematic, leading to vitamin E toxicity or hypervitaminosis E. High tocopherol concentrations can inhibit reactions necessary to form nonreactive products from free radicals. Vitamin E toxicity has been implicated in cases of poor growth, toxic liver reaction, and mortality in fish (Watanabe et al. 1970).


A physiological impact on fry that weigh 8 grams, could be completely void when those same fry reach 15 grams, or 20 grams, or .... That is precisely the problem with short term feed trials, especially those that are conducted by commercial growers, where MAXIMUM growth is the main focus in the majority of their studies. Those fish are destined to all die, and be eaten, not live out a long life in a public aquarium. The long term health of those fry is of no concern to the authors of that paper. In many of these feed trials the control diet alone could easily be effecting how those organisms react to EQ, as well as numerous others substances, bacteria, disease, etc. Most commercial control diets are garbage, derived from farm feed, where excessive soy, corn, wheat, etc. are used. Garbage. They aren't feeding NLS, or Northfin, or anything remotely close.

Do you not recall this conversation from back in 2012?
https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/what-are-you-feeding-your-fish.510234/

Of course you do, which is why you are still grasping for straws with new studies. This is not me saying that EQ should get a free pass, it shouldn't, but it shouldn't be condemned based on fear, anymore than substances such as Naturox should be considered 100% safe, because they are considered natural. Salmonella is natural, so is the bubonic plague.

Also I said previously, I suspect that the vast majority of fish foods on the market will test at under 100 ppm EQ. Many way under. I guess we will find out how smart I am (or not) as some of these various lab reports come in.

Oh, and of course you have your other crusade, synthetic vitamin K, Menadione, another substance put on the nutrient hit list by dog owners, and now brought into fish food by yourself and others. More smoke and mirrors, but no doubt you have tons of unrelated papers that prove nothing regarding the long term health impact on fish, and menadione, as well. Not a single case of toxic effects from menadione in commercial dog or cat food has ever been substantiated. Millions of pets (including fish) have been consuming this vitamin for decades too. I already see someone asking about that, and NLS, on your forum in your new thread. Too funny.

What next, Naturox won't be good enough because it contains soy based oil, or is Non-GMO? I'm sure that shoe will eventually drop, too. Just a matter of time before the hyper organic fanatics figure that out.


But again, this thread never was about EQ vs anti EQ. It was about something far bigger than that. At least in my mind.

 

[RD.]

The EU are basing their opinions on human health safety, a subject that you and I have already discussed.

Humans are not fish, fish are not rats, rats are not humans, nor are they dogs. In fact, according to the EPA (the same source of information that you have been constantly quoting in the past) dogs are more susceptible to ethoxyquin toxicity than rats. When you consider the size difference, one would think that it would be the other way around, but it doesn't work that way.

Also, under the EPA's *Hypothetical Cancer Dietary Exposure Results and Characterization* - cancer risks are calculated by multiplying the 70 year exposure estimate for the U.S. population by the Q*1 , and are expressed as a probability of developing cancer. Ethoxyquin has been determined to not be a carcinogen and no adequate guideline studies for rats and mice have been submitted for carcinogenic potential of ethoxyquin. To ensure safety in the absence of ethoxyquin specific carcinogenicity studies, a bounding Q*1 of 0.04 (mg/kg/day)-1 was created using the Q* bounding estimation procedure and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ethoxyquin.

Again, that is calculated by multiplying a 70 year exposure estimate.

Both the acute and chronic reference dose had a safety factor of 100 applied.

Human safety margins are FAR greater than pets, livestock, etc, for obvious reasons. We have to not only consider healthy adults, we have to consider the old, the frail, the ill, pregnant women, and small infants. We also have to consider the average lifespan of a human, compared to a dog, a rat, and a fish. Hence the 100 X safety factor in humans, and the 70 year exposure estimate.

So when one considers that, it only makes sense that acceptable levels in humans would be 50x lower than what is accepted in fish food, and 25x lower than what is accepted in dog food.

That seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[kmuda]

[But again, this thread never was about EQ vs anti EQ. It was about something far bigger than that. At least in my mind.

I agree, and as I stated, while I've always respect your opinion, I have no intention of going down this rabbit hole again. We'll just disagree on EQ, and Syntehtic Vitamin K, but Il will state that you do yourself a disservice by claiming anyone who does not want these products in their animal feeds are "wackos".

As for my Oscars, I don't claim EQ killed them. I would, however, like to rule EQ out of the equation.

 

[kmuda]

The EU are basing their opinions on human health safety, a subject that you and I have already discussed..

My apologies. I did not make that post as justification in my belief that EQ is harmful, I made that post to provide a possible motivation for NLS to be making the change, which means others will be following if they want to sell products in the EU..... instead of the consumer having the power and industry adapting to their demands, perhaps it is the over reaching arms of government.

 

[RD.]

And ........ the only reason that EQ is currently being discussed in the EU, is due to the fact that it is being reauthorized for use in the EU, which is supposed to be finalized by July of this year. Greenpeace is behind a LOT of the current brouhaha in the EU.

http://www.feednavigator.com/Regulation/EFSA-updates-on-timeline-for-ethoxyquin-risk-assessment

And just for the record, I have never once stated "anyone who does not want these products in their animal feeds are "wackos". ......... but a lot of them certainly come across that way. Is that better?

 

[RD.]

And yes, dropping EQ may in fact be forced upon the fish food industry, I alluded to that earlier in this discussion. And not just for selling to the EU, but perhaps even more importantly, for buying raw ingredients from EU based suppliers.

 

[RD.]

BTW kmuda, you should also know that if by chance EQ is turned down in the EU, many EU suppliers will most likely shift to using BHT, another preservative on your hit list. One can compare the prices of EQ, BHT, and tocopherol liquid per ton of treated fish meal in the following article.

http://www.feednavigator.com/Regulation/What-is-the-future-of-ethoxyquin-in-the-EU

I predict that EQ will be tweaked enough to remove safety concerns, and will be allowed to continue in the EU. If not, BHT will be utilized by the majority fish meal producers due to cost, followed by liquid tocopherols. How all this will play out on fish food labels is anyone's guess.

 

[RD.]

And on that note, the following link is for an MSDS for a Canadian supplier of South Antarctic Krill Meal (Euphausia superba), dated August 2015

http://www.krill.ca/documents/MSDSKrillMeal.pdf

SECTION 2- COMPOSITION – INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS

OTHER;

6-ethoxy-1,2 dihydro-2,2,4 trimethyl quinoline (CAS Reg.Nbr 91-53-2) is eventually added to retard oxidation (also known as Ethoxyquin). Alternative retardant of oxidation are natural antioxidants such as, but not limited to 1. Naturox liquid composed of mono and diglycerides, natural mixed tocopherols, citric acid and rosemary extract 2. Termox BCP liquid composed of BHA, propyl gallate and citric acid 3. Termox liquid FG which is a mixture of BHT and BHA