Northfin food

[RD.]

-150ppm is the limit for feeds used in animals for human consumption. Most preserved fish foods used in the hobby are not for fish intended for human consumption. Any talk of the FDA or USDA is immaterial since our fish will not be consumed by humans. It's the wild wild west... no regulations apply other than to keep it safe for humans to handle the food.

That is completely false.

Pet food labeling is regulated at two levels. The federal regulations enforced by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), establish standards applicable for all animal feeds: proper identification of product, net quantity statement, manufacturer's address, and proper listing of ingredients. Many States also enforce their own labeling regulations. Most States follow the pet food regulations established by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). These regulations are more specific in nature, covering aspects of labeling such as the product name, the guaranteed analysis, the nutritional adequacy statement, feeding directions, and calorie statements.




Please read the various links below, some I have already posted. I also already posted to that study, which due to its short length is inconclusive. Agreed, for fish, most of the science is - but the legal limit set for pet food is 150 ppm. Period. Also, pretty much every fish food on the planet made in the past 50 yrs has and does contain ethoxyquin, so obviously it is palatable. LOL

FDA - Pet Food Label Regulations

https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/ResourcesforYou/ucm047113.htm

Nevertheless, CVM has asked the pet food industry to voluntarily lower the maximum level of use of ethoxyquin in dog foods from 150 ppm (0.015%) to 75 ppm. Regardless, most pet foods that contained ethoxyquin never exceeded the lower amount, even before this recommended change.

Read and Learn ......

https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Products/AnimalFoodFeeds/PetFood/


This one is from the CVM ..... as in Center for VETERINARY MEDICINE

https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/products/animalfoodfeeds/ingredientsadditives/ucm541035.htm

The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) would like to remind industry about the labeling and safe use requirements for ethoxyquin, an approved food additive used in animal feed.

Ethoxyquin, an approved food additive used in animal feed, has specific labeling and safe use requirements.

Ethoxyquin is added to an animal feed either directly or indirectly as a component of an ingredient. In either case, one of the following statements must be included on the product label: “Ethoxyquin, a preservative,” or “Ethoxyquin added to retard the oxidative destruction of carotene, xanthophylls, and vitamins A and E.” This label is necessary to help ensure the safe use of ethoxyquin, since there are established tolerances and a maximum use rate for this food additive.

The established tolerances for ethoxyquin are as follows: 5 ppm in or on the uncooked fat of meat from animals (except poultry); 3 ppm in or on the uncooked liver and fat of poultry; 0.5 ppm in or on the uncooked muscle meat of animals; 0.5 ppm in poultry eggs; zero in milk. The maximum quantity of ethoxyquin “to be used and to remain in or on the treated article shall not exceed 150 parts per million (ppm).”

The approved uses of ethoxyquin in animal feeds are addressed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 21, Parts 573.380 and 573.400, and established tolerances are in Part 172.140.

The exact FDA regulation .......

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=573.380




This one is an article printed in a well known pet trade magazine, the author worked within the FDA.

http://www.petfoodindustry.com/articles/206-ethoxyquin-redux



From the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) and their PET FOOD regulations

http://www.aafco.org/Consumers/What-is-in-Pet-Food

Some ingredients which function as chemical preservatives: Ascorbic acid, Benzoic acid, Butylated hydroxyl anisol (BHA), Butylated hydroxyltoluene (BHT), Calcium ascorbate, Citric acid, Ethoxyquin, Potassium sorbate, Sodium bisulfate, Mixed Tocopherols. Some of these preservatives have limits to the amount that can be used or what types of products the preservative can be added to. The fact that a preservative has been added must be shown, such as preserved with BHT or mixed tocopherols (preservative).

I prefer not to assume anything at this point, nor do I see anyone hyperventilating? As stated from the get go, I am NOT anti-ethoxyquin, far from it - but as a consumer who pays for my pets food, there are limits that I want to expose them to. That goes with all my pets, not just fish. With dog/cat food ethoxyquin is no longer an issue, most companies have dropped ethox due to the outcry of consumers over the past 25 yrs.


The reason that this very controversial preservative has slipped through the cracks in fish food, is a very simple one. Money, man power, and a lack thereof. Extra tests, extra manpower, is federally lacking. That money is now going towards building a south facing wall. That, and overall consumers and society in general simply don't care about pet fish in the same manner as they do pet dogs and cats.

That doesn't mean that it's ok to double up on substances that have set limits within the industry - and then state that ones product are *free* of those substances.

If that is ok with some folks, no problem, feel free to move on and make America great again. Your fish, your call.

 

[PYRU]

False advertisement plain and simple. Imagine drinking a diet coke etc with say an advertised 50ppm of aspartame. Then you find out it's actually 200ppm and the maximum allowed for safety is 75ppm.

If I was at the job site and ordered valves rated for 500psi then come to find out its just a label and they're actually 150psi. I would ask for a reason and to replace all valves at their expense then possible back charge due to loss of work with crews on site.

This type of deception is simply unacceptable fish food or otherwise. Image your TDS etc in your tap being that far over the allowed amount.

 

[Grinch]

Pet food labeling is regulated at two levels. The federal regulations enforced by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), establish standards applicable for all animal feeds: proper identification of product, net quantity statement, manufacturer's address, and proper listing of ingredients. Many States also enforce their own labeling regulations. Most States follow the pet food regulations established by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). These regulations are more specific in nature, covering aspects of labeling such as the product name, the guaranteed analysis, the nutritional adequacy statement, feeding directions, and calorie statements.


Please read the various links below, some I have already posted. I also already posted to that study, which due to its short length is inconclusive. Agreed, for fish, most of the science is - but the legal limit set for pet food is 150 ppm. Period. Also, pretty much every fish food on the planet made in the past 50 yrs has and does contain ethoxyquin, so obviously it is palatable. LOL

Well... I clearly misread a statement in the 2009 paper I cited above! Thanks for the correction

In re-reading, the supposition by those authors is that the FDA is mainly worried about ethoxyquin getting into the human food supply (who cares about animals, right?), hence a limit of 150ppm across the board. I would guess that this is probably an accurate statement. Anyone want to test it? See link.

https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/TransparencyInitiative/ucm254426.htm

But there are probably 1,000 more significant factors that are more important to keeping fish happy and healthy than the level of ethoxyquin in their food.

This seems most likely to me as well given what I've read in the literature.

 

[RD.]

In re-reading, the supposition by those authors is that the FDA is mainly worried about ethoxyquin getting into the human food supply (who cares about animals, right?), hence a limit of 150ppm across the board. I would guess that this is probably an accurate statement.

No, that is not an accurate statement. Just more misinformation.

In July 1997, after assessing the results of the latest study on ethoxyquin, the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine asked that the maximum amount of the preservative be voluntary reduced to 75 parts per million in complete dog foods. The FDA stated that the earlier limit of 150 ppm "may not provide an adequate margin of safety in lactating female dogs and possibly puppies." The reason being that lactating female dogs generally consume far more food (2-3 times) than non-lactating females, hence an increased level of every substance in any food will occur. The study showed ethoxyquin levels of 150 ppm had no adverse health effects at maintenance levels, but that by reducing the max amount to 75 ppm it would create an additional safety margin for lactating females and their puppies.

Are we there yet?

150 ppm is the max limit in PET food, not food destined for humans.

 

[Grinch]

150 ppm is the max limit in PET food, not food destined for humans.

I'm not arguing that point. Though I do find it interesting that you just fell into the same misreading trap that I fell into previously.

 

[RD.]

I've been following this subject for decades, if you feel that you have some new information to help enlighten myself or others regarding the pet food industry, then by all means share.

 

[dogofwar]

So any documented ethyoxquin-related fish deaths in the history of aquarium-keeping, where fish died after moving from a food with lower concentrations or none to one with higher?

 

[Grinch]

So any documented ethyoxquin-related fish deaths in the history of aquarium-keeping, where fish died after moving from a food with lower concentrations or none to one with higher?

It looks to me like there has not been a comprehensive scientific study of ethoxyquin toxicity in a single species of fish, let alone multiple species. It could be that this means that there just hasn't been much research on this subject. Or this could mean that the dearth of reported peer-reviewed studies is that studies were conducted, the results were negative, and the studies are now "ghosts" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917235/).

While there are lots of studies on the effects of ethoxyquin on mammals, the same cannot be said for fish.

I'd love to see the smoking-gun study, though.

 

[dogofwar]

Seems that foods of the past, chock full of ethoxyquin and other preservatives, would have left dead and dying fish in their wake...

My take: marketing differentiation based on something that really doesn't matter turns out to be false. Everyone goes back to feeding their fish the food that they used to, which contains as much or more ethoxyquin than Northfin... and killing their fish the good old way through lack of water changes, overfeeding, and mixing the wrong fish

It looks to me like there has not been a comprehensive scientific study of ethoxyquin toxicity in a single species of fish, let alone multiple species. It could be that this means that there just hasn't been much research on this subject. Or this could mean that the dearth of reported peer-reviewed studies is that studies were conducted, the results were negative, and the studies are now "ghosts" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917235/).

While there are lots of studies on the effects of ethoxyquin on mammals, the same cannot be said for fish.

I'd love to see the smoking-gun study, though.

/

 

[RD.]

Foods of the past were not chock full of ethoxyquin, if anything, foods of the past would have contained but a fraction of ethox compared to todays foods.
How so you ask? Because fish foods of the past were mostly cereal based, not comprised of the same percentages of krill and/or fish, such as what one sees in most of the current foods. No need for ethoxyquin to preserve corn, wheat, rice, potato, middling's, etc. lol

I love how some here assume that 330 ppm is the industry norm, with absolutely nothing to back that assumption up. Having seen similar lab reports in the past, on other fish food products, I can assure you that 330 ppm is not the norm when it comes to fish food, and ethoxyquin. But hey, please don't let my input stop anyone from feeding those levels to their fish. As I stated previously, your fish, your call.

This is not an anti-ethoxyquin crusade for me. In fact, I have supported it's use (at approved levels) in pet food for approx. 30 years. Not that I would hate to see it replaced with more user friendly, less controversial preservatives. But this discussion isn't just about the use of ethoxyquin in pet food, or its safety factor.

A smoking gun? Of course not, we have already determined that consumers and the world at large do not hold pet fish to the same standards as we do dogs, and cats. But that doesn't mean that there is zero data, even if that data is being extrapolated from one species to another, or are taken from outside of an aquarium. Outside of commercial fisheries, there are very few comprehensive scientific studies involving any species of fish, and any type of feed data? In the world of tropical fish and aquariums, when a fish dies we flush it down the toilet and buy another one.

Having said that, we can make at least some assumptions based on aquatic species involving various substances, including vitamins (such as vitamin A toxicity) and extrapolate data from one species to another. Not a perfect science, but no one here is saying that it is.

According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), ethoxyquin is “considered to be toxic to aquatic organisms based on the acute toxicity data provided for fish, daphnia and algae." EFSA Journal 8(9), 1710 [38 pp.]: doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1710 (2010

The EPA has filed a few papers on this subject as well.

MRID No. 43978301 (1996) Ethoxyquin A 96-Hour Flow-Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Rainbow Trout

http://www.ipmcenters.org/Ecotox/Details.cfm?RecordID=10268

MRID No. 43978401 (1996) A 43-Hour Flow-Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Cladoceran (Daphnia magna)

http://www.ipmcenters.org/Ecotox/Details.cfm?RecordID=10267

and Bluegill Sunfish

http://www.ipmcenters.org/Ecotox/Details.cfm?RecordID=18452


PubChem GHS Hazard Statements:

H400: Very toxic to aquatic life [Warning Hazardous to the aquatic environment, acute hazard - Category 1]

H410: Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects [Warning Hazardous to the aquatic environment, long-term hazard - Category 1]

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/ethoxyquin#section=GHS-Classification


No offense meant here gents, but quite frankly I am not interested in your take. The only take at this point that I am interested in hearing is Northfin's. I read on another forum today that they were made aware of these lab reports back in mid December, so for them to sit in silence probably tells me all I need to know.