Kmuda ......... there is no need to break down your simplified analysis for me, I got it the first time around. I'm well aware of what the US Coast Guard regulations are, etc-etc-etc.
The problem is, for the most part you are simply playing a guessing game, and talking out of your arse about things that you clearly do not understand. Such as the Brown Bullhead study, which proved about as much as the study that involved rats back in 1987, at an inclusion rate of
5000 ppm.
Even in the 2008 study, *The synthetic antioxidant, ethoxyquin, adversely affects immunity in tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)* it stated in the abstract (which gee, you seem to have accidently left out) ...........
However, after 30 days of experimental challenge with feed containing 150 mg kg−1 of EQ, no significant difference was observed in mortality. Although EQ at the approved level in feed causes immunosuppression in fish, the severity of immunosuppression does not lead to a lowering of disease resistance for short feeding periods.
So even after 30 days @ 150ppm, it didn't even lead to a lowering of disease resistance, let alone liver or kidney failure.
And again, another number that will NOT be found in commercial fish foods, at least none that I use.
You asked;
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?
The "industry" that involved adding melamine into wheat gluten, and rice protein concentrate was based in China, a country that is known for some VERY unsafe practices involving food, even food destined for human infants. No comparison, and no fish food manufacturer in North America is buying fish meal from China. So to answer your question, one has nothing to do with the other, which is appearing to be a common theme in your debate.
When I previously stated; "Krill contains fluoride (a known toxin to fish), many "natural" fresh/frozen foods found at the local fish market contain mercury, dioxins, PCB's, furans, and other environmental contaminants that all known toxins to aquatic life." ................
I wasn't talking about farmed salmon, or salmon meal, I was referring to fish collected in the oceans, lakes, and rivers here in North America. Even krill collected in the pristine waters of the South Antarctic Ocean are exposed to, and will contain a certain amount of, environmental contaminants.
So, if you are going to be fixated about tossing out the baby with the bath water, you best remove pretty much everything found in nature as well, because in today's world almost everything on the planet comes with some kind of baggage attached. Krill, Shrimp, Tilapia, Mussels, Salmon, Cod, etc-etc-etc.
You state;
Regardless, "safely" in the above comment remains debatable. There are many vets and dog owners that would disagree with it completely.
There are many vets, and dog owners, that are complete morons, and your point is?
No science, just the same knee jerk crap that I have been reading for the past 15 years or so, by a bunch of mental midgets who aren't smart enough to stop & consider that many of their dogs auto immune ailments were probably associated with the massive amounts of terrestrial based grains in their dog food. Grains that are today known for their allergic qualities and causing serious health issues in MILLIONS of dogs world wide. Something that I have been speaking out against in dog food for decades, just as I have in fish food. Corn, soybeans, wheat gluten, etc.
Even quality raw ingredients such as chicken, eggs, etc can cause severe allergic reactions in dogs, and make them very ill, even deathly ill if the cause isn't found & corrected. Not to mention that some of these vets have hidden agendas, such as their own line of "health" foods & supplements, and best selling books of same. As I said previously, don't be so naive.
The ONLY reason that ethoxyquin was removed by dog/cat food manufacturers, is because the outcry from the ethoxyquin lunatics became so loud most companies decided it was much easier to cave in & switch, than argue, no matter how sound the science or logic behind their use of the substance. Unfortunately you can't stop stupid.
Does that mean that today's dog foods are safer, or that there was ever any science that demonstrated ANY unsafe levels in ANY brand of dog or cat food that was on the market- NO. Same as today's fish food.
This is the result of the tree hugger mentality that I previously mentioned.
For some bizarre reason you want to compare food safety between food destined for humans, and food destined for ornamental fish, and apparently do not understand why the safety standards for one is different than the other.
Are you kidding me???
Tom summed things up nicely.
This boils down to the exact same point we have been going in circles about. What is safe for fish and people will vary. Pharmacuetical companies dont depend heavily on lab rats anymore since the correlation between rat and human tolerances are nil. I dont see the value in applying human standards to fish. Also, as stated before, there are a lot of things that are acceptable in some level, toxic in another.
You claim uncertainty is risk, but what could possibly be certain about new fish food developed to avoid the use of etho? How would you even know what is in it and how dangerous that concoction could be.
Sounds like I'm just spinning my wheels here anyhow
Bingo!
Kmuda ...........if you actually read the EPA's safety assessment on ethoxyquin you might actually understand how ridiculous some of your assertions are. 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) 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.
The primary target organs affected by ethoxyquin in experimental animals are the liver and the kidneys. Dogs are more susceptible to ethoxyquin toxicity than rats with elevated liver enzymes and microscopic findings in the liver occurring at doses as low as 4 mg/kg/day over a 90 day feeding period. Studies indicate that ethoxyquin is not a teratogen or a developmental toxicant in rats or rabbits; ethoxyquin did not cause developmental effects in rats tested at doses of 350 mg/kg/day during gestation, or in rats at doses as high as 500 mg/kg of a 67% ethoxyquin formulation, and no developmental effects were seen in rabbits where the maximum dose of 3 mg/kg/day was administered.
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.
At some point you just have to stop & use some common sense.
If in fact the level of ethoxyquin typically found in tropical fish foods caused any type of serious health issues in ornamental species of fish, such as liver and/or kidney disease, this would have become rather obvious 30 or 40 years ago. Where are all these sickly dieing fish with impaired liver & kidney functions? I certainly haven't owned any, or maybe I've just been lucky when my fish live out a healthy, normal lifespan?
How can it be possible that an industry that has been utilizing this same preservative for over 50 years, has somehow managed to have fish surviving in captivity for decades?
Fish that in captivity & consuming trace amounts of this substance on a daily basis yet even surviving well beyond the typical lifespan of the species. Fish raised from tiny larvae, right on up to 20, 30, even 40+ years in captivity. How on earth is this possible?
So the intent switches to attempting to convince the aquarium hobbyist community to request the fish food industry do better, much has occurred in the dog food industry.
Yes, and by apparently using the same kind of lame data and logic that they used. So far kmuda you haven't presented a single shred of evidence that demonstrates that at the levels used by tropical fish food manufacturers, there is one iota of a safety issue with ethoxyquin.
What you are "warning" about with this preservative, could also be said about almost every raw ingredient found in tropical fish food, including many of the vitamins.
You do understand that, yes?
