You know as well as I do that there has never been a study of any commercially available fish food and the levels of ethoxyquin they contain. Please, let's have them done. It's information I have been asking the food manufacturers for. My take on the situation is that if such studies were conducted, there would likely be a lot of fish food manufactures in trouble for violation of FDA regulations pertaining to the inclusion of Ethoxyquin statements on the ingredient labels.
How about we ask the food manufacturers to let us know, in ppm, how much Ethoxyquin is in the food? I've tried. They won't. If the levels are anywhere near human acceptable levels, instead of 50x what is allowed for humans, or even at levels lower than the 4 mg/kg/day that have been demonstrated to cause health issues in dogs, then fine. Use of Ethoxyquin can be justified. But as long as the levels may be potentially 50x what is acceptable for humans then I will consider the use of Ethoxyquin as undesirable. I can only take their silence on the matter and unwillingness to discuss it as an indication that we are dealing with the higher end of the limit, not the lower.
Coast Guard regulations pertaining to Ethoxyquin and fish meal specify at least 100ppm must be used on any fish meal shipped by boat. Fish meals commonly contain anywhere from 500ppm to 1000ppm Ethoxyquin. So my estimate of 150ppm is perfectly reasonable. The 37.5ppm number I arrived at is based upon the finished pellet consisting of (at least) 25% fish meal. A perfectly reasonable and conservative number. Of course, if more than 25% fish meal is used, or multiple meals dosed with Ethoxyquin are used, or if the ethoxyquin concentration in the meal exceeds 150ppm, then the ethoxyquin content of the finished product will be higher. The same holds true in reverse. But I would think, when asked, if the ethoxyquin concentration of their foods is within the lower limit, or even lower, they would be happy to provide this information. They don't. I've asked. Instead I get the "ignore the man behind the curtain" argument or just ignored.
Please explain to me why I should assume that less than 150ppm of Ethoxyquin, the legal limit, exists in the final product? Am I to assume that the same industry that pumped melamine into meal products to increase protein content is suddenly going to be concerned about maintaining lower levels of Ethoxyquin? Am I to assume near human acceptable levels are in use when 50x that is allowed?
Yes, PCBs and other myotoxins in farmed salmon utilized in Salmon Meal is another subject to discuss in another thread.
No, I either have public statements from the company marketing that they do not use ethoxyquin or I have private communications from them that that particular food does not contain ethoxyquin. From NLS I have a public statement declaring their support of Ethoxyquin use and a complete non-response when I ask if a specific NLS food, that does not list ethoxyquin on the label, does or does not contain it. I'm finding it odd that some NLS foods in the U.S. do not have an Ethoxyquin label and the same food in Australia does.
And I am probably an even older fart. Regardless, "safely" in the above comment remains debatable. There are many vets and dog owners that would disagree with it completely.
Don' get me wrong. No one wants me to be wrong more than me. But the "there is no study" or "ignore the man behind the curtain" argument is not going to work. There are studies, specific to fish, that identify (at least) the maximum allowable concentration of ethoxyquin affects the fish's immune system and liver. There are no studies identifying at what minimum level ethoxyquin toxicity can be detected in fish. There are studies pertaining to other animals that identify health risks at lower concentrations and the maximum allowable concentration for humans is defined as such for a reason. I am not going to ignore the man behind the curtain and just accept it, especially when it does not have to be that way.
