Well Kmuda, I certainly don't think that you have any kind of hidden agenda (you aren't selling holistic fish food, are you?) ha-ha-ha, I just think that you are terribly misguided, and terribly misinformed.
I see that you have now dropped the Brown Bullhead study from the conversation, which is at least a move in the right direction, but I have to admit that I would have felt a whole lot better about your stats & facts had you owned that mistake from the get go.
Now allow me to make a summation.
Seeing as you want to bring dogs, humans, and everything else that may have touched something with a trace amount of this substance on or in it then lets continue on in that same vein with some additional facts.
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.
As previously stated, 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.
For some reason, dog food companies can provide that information and fish food companies cannot (the "holistic" dog food I feed my dogs contains 5ppm ethoxyquin. 5ppm falls within the "trace" designation.)
I already explained this in a previous comment - was there some part of that you didn't understand?
Let's try this again - historically dog food companies used ethoxyquin to preserve lipids in their food, and it was added when the food was manufactured. This is not the case with most fish food manufacturers, ethox is not added by them, or at the manufacturing level - it is primarily found in the raw ingredients themselves. Hence the reason why it can potentially increase, and/or decrease, from one batch of food to the next. So no manufacturer in their right mind wants to hang their hat on any set number, as there never will be any definitive quantity in ALL of their products, ALL of the time.
So is that clear enough now as to why in this regard one can't compare dog food manufacturers, with fish food manufacturers?
Even IF I was supply you with a number, would it actually mean anything to you?
Would you believe me? Would you trust my source?
Years ago when Pablo wrote that nutrition article his food did contain ethoxyquin, which I was told in a previous discussion with him, prior to that article, contained approx 20 ppm (.002%) of the finished product. I cannot substantiate that as I never personally had any food tested at the time, but being a man of his word that was good enough for me. That, and he had no real motive to supply me with a bogus number because at that time he had no idea that ethoxyquin was even an issue with pet (dog) owners, as it had never been an issue in the aquaculture circles - which is what he lives & breathes. That was also back before he was sourcing his own raw ingredients, and making his own food. He really should update his website.
BTW - most fish food companies do NOT make their own food, they source it out to a commercial feed mill, to which the vast majority do in fact use fish meal that has been treated with ethoxyquin. They may state otherwise, but who's to prove them wrong?
Most State regulatory bodies check for protein, ash content, etc, but not levels of preservatives.
Also, I see on your oscar website where you state that Hikari makes their own fish meal - do you have anything concrete from them to substantiate that? Something in writing perhaps? I'm 99% positive that while they do make their own food in-house, they do not make their own fish meal. You might want to double check with your source. You also state that they use
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) as their preservative, which again I believe is incorrect, in fish food it would be used to enhance flavor - certainly NOT to keep fat from going rancid. Again, you might want to double check with your source about this information that you have taken public on your forum. Misinformation can certainly be a dangerous thing.
Also, ethox is not just found in fish meal, even ingredients that no one would typically consider, such as astaxanthin (a micro-algae), can utilize ethoxyquin as a preservative - which unlike your earlier assertion does not equate to an
indefinite shelf life - it simply adds a safety margin that mixed tocopherols do not, when high lipid content is part of the foods make up. That is an absolute undisputed fact.
As an example, with Naturose astaxanthin even when stored under ideal temperature the shelf life is 12 months from date of manufacture. The following is directly from a past manufacturers label that I had from a shipment of this algae.
Expiration date is 1 year from the date of manufacture.
They also state "Expiration date is based on proper storage in a tightly closed container at or below 4°C. (39.20ºF)
At room temperature, shelf life may be reduced to 6 months from receipt of product."
The main reason for the rather short shelf life is due to the high lipid (fat) content, which is 21%. Even with using ethoxyquin as the preservative for this product, when stored under ideal conditions it's shelf life is only 12 months - and at room temperature, a mere 6 months!
That means it has to go from Cyanotech corp (the manufacturer), to a distributor, to a vendor and/or end user, and be completely used up within 12 months max - when shipped and stored under ideal conditions, including ideal temps.
Now remove the ethoxyquin, and use mixed tocopherols, and you have a serious storage problem, with potentially serious health issues for anyone using this in their fish feed.
This is why fish food suppliers use ethox, especially those that have to consider fatty acid levels, not because of cost savings, but because it was, and still is, the most effective preservative in existence, with a sound track record going back 50+ years.
Even the FDA state:
Especially for high-fat dry products, some form of preservative must be used to prevent rancidity. Natural-source preservatives, such as mixed tocopherols (a source of vitamin E), can be used in place of artificial preservatives. However, they may not be as effective.
(the "holistic" dog food I feed my dogs contains 5ppm ethoxyquin. 5ppm falls within the "trace" designation.)
FYI - the term "holistic" has no legal definition and is unregulated with regard to pet food. Using terms such as "holistic" for pet foods can actually be very misleading to consumers because there is absolutely no reference as to how your dog’s food ingredients are sourced, or how the food is formulated. It's marketing hype used by manufacturers to increase sales, nothing more. Just thought that might be something worth mentioning in this discussion, seeing as you have brought up the term "holistic" twice now, to describe pet food.
Also, don't you find it just a wee bit ironic that you (kmuda) would denounce a preservative such as ethoxyquin, but then on your website fully embrace & endorse a company that uses
MSG in their food, no matter what the supposed purpose of that MSG is?
I mean after all, MSG has certainly had its share of controversy over the years, so much so that they even coined a couple of names for MSG reactions; "The Chinese Restaurant Syndrome", and "The MSG Symptom Complex"
As an example;
Executive Summary from the Report: Analysis of Adverse Reactions to Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/125/11/2891S.full.pdf
Prepared for Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. 20204 under FDA Contract No.223-92-2185
12. What are the relative sensitivities of rodents
and nonhuman primates to the acute central
nervous system (CNS) effects of MSG?
The Expert Panel found no scientific studies that
carefully assessed the relative sensitivities of both
rodents and nonhuman primates to the central
nervous system effects of MSG. However, numer
ous studies have shown that doses of 0.5 to 4.0 g
MSG/kg body weight produce hypothalamic le
sions in infant mice. For enteral administration, the
minimum effective dose is 0.5 to 0.7 g MSG/kg body
weight (Daabees et al., 1985; O'Hara and Takasaki,
1979; Olney and Ho, 1970). Similarly, Olney et al.
(1972) described "small focal lesions" in the brains
of infant rhesus monkeys given 1 to 2 g MSG/kg
body weight enterally (by gavage) in a 50/50 solu
tion of water and skim milk. Based on these few
studies, the Expert Panel concluded that the relative
sensitivities of rodents and nonhuman primates to
enteral MSG-induced brain lesions are likely to be
of the same order of magnitude.
WoW, that doesn't sound too good.
Of course, we don't know what it does to fish, because no such studies involving finfish probably exist. I mean why would they, Hikari is the only fish food manufacturer in the world that I know of that uses MSG in their food. But hey, I guess as long as no one is making a stink about this on the interweb it must be safe & sound, right?
Personally I think that MSG is generally safe for human consumption, but acknowledge the fact that is does cause negative reactions within some of the human population. Apparently at high enough inclusion rates it doesn't do great wonders for the health of mice, or monkeys, but I'm guessing that just like ethoxyquin, if it was causing major problems in ornamental species of fish, and considering how long Hikari has been selling fish food we would have known about it a long, long, time ago.
I just thought that it was a bit comical that you would endorse a food that contained such a controversial ingredient, one that IMHO is not required in fish food to begin with.
That, and it's a classic example of how a little bit of knowledge, and a single paper showing some select snippets from a few select studies could easily cause a panic attack among the general public if that information became common knowledge via the interweb.
Which is exactly how the ethoxyquin scare began all those years ago. I know, because I was there when it started, this certainly isn't my first rodeo.
Now for the common sense part ...........
Previously in this discussion I quoted Dr. Ruth Francis-Floyd, a professor at the U of Florida whom is considered by her peers to be an expert on fish nutrition;
"Fatty infiltration of the liver has also been designated "the most common metabolic disturbance and most frequent cause of death in aquarium fish"
Here's the thing, professionals such as the fish vet mentioned above perform necropsies on fish on a regular basis. Any professional that works in this field has performed hundreds, some most likely thousands of necropsies on fish over the course of their career, just as those have before them. In the USA alone, this would equate to 10's of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of fish being opened up and examined over the past 50 years.
One of the things most often studied and examined during necropsies is the liver.
Not just with the naked eye, but close up, under the lens of microscopes when studying numerous different conditions, including fatty infiltration of the liver.
The livers of fish have been viewed & studied in depth by thousands of different researchers & professionals, on young immature fish, fish that are several years old, fish that have died from natural old age, and everything in between, including both domestic raised & wild specimens - where pyknosis of the liver (such as in the Tilapia study involving ethoxyquin @ 150ppm) would also clearly show up during these necropsies.
So IF this was a common condition among domestic fish over the past 50 years, I'm quite certain that it would have been noticed among professionals decades ago, and there would be scores of papers & studies & articles on the subject.
Yet there isn't, not a single connection to any type of liver, kidney, or immunosuppression problems caused by any of the major commercial feeds on the market.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
As one scholar reflected on the general media phenomenon surrounding yet another controversial food ingredient, “if public paranoia continues, it is only a matter of time before apple pie itself comes under the toxicologist’s scrutiny.”
True that.
demanding it of the FDA, which focused on Dogs and resulted in the requested reduced concentration in dog foods to 75ppm. None of the Monsanto or FDA studies involved fish.
