Northfin food

[Grinch]

rjkz28 You see what you've done?

A note on comparing the few studies that have looked at EQ in fish. Dose-response curves for any substance can vary substantially between species. I've mentioned above that there has been very little study of the effects of EQ on freshwater fish. This is an important distinction because the liver and kidneys of freshwater fish, saltwater fish, and anadromous fish vary quite a bit generally speaking and might therefore be expected to vary in their physiological/biochemical response to EQ. Coldwater vs. tropical fish might also be important, but I suspect less so because there is a greater deal of homology with respect to temperature adaptations than water chemistry adaptations.

 

[RD.]

It should also be noted that ethoxyquin is available commercially at various levels of purity - which could potentially have a major relevance when one is assessing toxicological reports and/or studies on fish, or any other subject matter.

 

[RD.]

DSM Prepared For Ban of Ethoxyquin

http://dsm-feedback.dk/en/2017/02/17/dsm-prepared-for-ban-of-ethoxyquin-in-eu/

DSM has taken EFSA’s concerns about the safety of ethoxyquin for consumers and target animals seriously. Consequently, we have developed new product forms in which ethoxyquin is replaced by the antioxidant BHT.

For DSM, one of the larger suppliers of EQ in the world, it will be business as usual.

 

[kmuda]

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. .

Yes, perhaps a Pyrirhic victory at best. I am not as well studied on BHT as I am EQ.. know BHT and BHA are currently banned in several countries (Japan as well as several EU countries, at least as far as it's inclusions in human food.) so there is likely to be some kickback there.

BTW.... Pretty good read here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...l1TrrMZiIHx1bHqOkk90yw&bvm=bv.149760088,d.cGw

 

[RD.]

Thanks, I've already read that paper. Here's a link to their short paper from last year.

http://www.iffo.net/es/system/files/EQ Short Statement AMENDED_0.pdf

The regulations regarding the safe shipping transport of fishmeal have been put in place by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) code as well as the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) code. The IMO requires that fishmeal shipped under Class 9 must be dosed with the following concentrations of antioxidant at the time of production:


between 400 and 1000 mg/kg (ppm) ethoxyquin (EQ), or

between 1000 and 4000 mg/kg (ppm) butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)

Dosage must be done within 12 months prior to shipment and the antioxidant content must be more than 100 mg/kg (ppm) at the time of shipment.

Dosage rate at time of manufacture will be dependant on fat level of the product, but we know that in fishmeal etc BHT levels will typically be much higher than EQ levels, as the starting point is 1,000 ppm.


This could turn out to be a case of be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.

 

[RD.]

At this point I might as well toss this out there as well.

BHT MSDS
http://www.merisol.com/images/BHT_MSDS_Update_041708.pdf

BHT is considered to have a moderate to high bioaccumulation potential (230-2500 (fish, 56-day test)) in aquatic species.



Sublethal Effects of Butylated Hydroxytoluene through Feed in Common Carp

Deng-Fwu Hwang1), Ming-Rong Tsai1), Sen-Shyong Jeng1), Harumi Imamura Kojima2), Tamao Yoshida3)

1) Graduate School of Marine Food Science, National Taiwan Ocean University 2) Tokyo University of Fisheries 3) Department of Aquaculture, National Taiwan Ocean University

Released 2008/02/29

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/suisan1932/57/6/57_6_1153/_pdf

Abstract; Attempts were made to elucidate the sublethal responses of common carp Cyprinus carpio exposed to the feed additive butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). The common carp was administered BHT at sublethal levels such as 0.2-1.6% in the diet for 14 weeks. The growth rate was not found to significantly decrease when common carp were fed a diet with supplements of BHT (p>0.05). However, the declining growth rate was observed to be most significant in the fish fed diet with supplement of 1.6% BHT from the 4th to 8th weeks (p<0.05). The symptoms of hepatopancreas enlargement were commonly found in the fish group fed diet with supplement of BHT. However, this symptom would be alleviated when the fish were switched to the BHT-free diet. The pathological symptoms in hepatopancreas induced by BHT were observed under microscope. The lesions indicated that the enlarged hepatopancreas had heavy steatosis, eosinophilia, and megalocytic hepatosis.




Toxicity Studies for Butylated hydroxy toluene on Fish - Toxicology studies from the primary scientific literature on aquatic organisms

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/List_AquireAll.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33712&Taxa_Group=Fish




As I was saying, this could turn out to be a case of be careful what you wish for, it just might come true......

 

[PYRU]

This is one squirrel of thread now....

 

[kmuda]

As I was saying, this could turn out to be a case of be careful what you wish for, it just might come true......

Yes, but I expect even more backlash against BHT should it be used as a substitution. NLS, at least, is taking the mixed tocopherols route and not the BHT/BHA route. I would expect others to follow. The Tetras of the world.... the congomerates... witll also take the path of least cost, but I don't buy their food.

 

[RD.]

Should it be used? BHT is already globally approved, and being used in approx. 30% of the fish meal world-wide. 66% of the worlds fishmeal is preserved with EQ, as per the IFFO paper that you posted a link to yesterday morning. Did you not read it?

And right behind BHT is butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), and tertiary butyl hydroquinone (TBHQ), the latter which is currently under application for approval.

Did you not see the post with the info on the Canadian supplier of SA Krill? EQ, BHT, and BHA were all listed as preservatives. The next round of lab tests better start testing for BHT. lol

Also, by the looks of companies such as DSM they already have all their new BHT products ready to go. From chicken egg yolk coloring (Carophyll Yellow), to pink salmon flesh coloring (Carophyll Red), and these are for HUMAN grade foods - no one cares about pet fish food - that's not even what this reauthorisation regulation in the EU is about. Even if EQ is banned in the EU for farm feed, that may turn out to only apply to farm feed that will eventually enter the human food chain - not pet food. And even more important, who do you reckon will be checking pet foods for EQ, BHT, etc? Look what just happened with the line of products, in this discussion.
Hmmmm.

 

[kmuda]

I doubt the South Americans will make any change in the preservatives being used. You'll just see more of that fish meal going to China and elsewhere in the world that still allows EQ.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think either AAFCO or the EFSA distinguish any difference between "farmed animal feed" and "pet animal feed".