I don't think either of you even read eachothers comments
Right, that's why we are responding to quoted portions of each others previous comment - because we aren't even reading any of it. You must be a rocket scientist in real life, Vet.
You must have misunderstood my reference. I stated nothing pertaining to the toxicity, or lack thereof, of BHA or BHT. Their reference in the previous statement was only that their absence, like ethoxyquin, can be used as a potential indicator in determining the freshness of the initial products.
Potential indicator, yes, it could also potentially indicate nothing of the sort.
In most cases, I am well beyond that level of responses within the individual companies. But since you brought it up, what's different in my taking one representative of the industries word for something and taking your word for it? Both have a vested interest.
The difference is, I am not a paid employee that works for any of these pet food companies, and unlike them I don't have to talk in circles & make things up as I go along like some kind of politician trying to glean my next vote. My vested interest is miniscule in comparison. Nor would I exactly consider myself down in the trenches. My name, and my word are far more important to me than any fish food company - I don't owe my soul or my next pay check to anyone, so in that respect I am a free agent who unlike company reps can speak freely on most of these matters.
That's the difference.
And on that note, I'm done with this discussion.
Cheers.