>again - please come up with a proper article written in a scientifically
>refereed journal to support the supposed ill effects of ethoxyquin, as a
>preservative. You might be able to find something from the Enquirer or one
>of Murdoch's rags but almost everything there is fiction. And please
>nothing from the English newspapers that have the "daily tarts". They call
>that news? As I said before I think this worry about ethoxyquin is simply
>"net rumor". Easy to spread and hard to remove. I'm sure that the pet
>industry would not put this into most of the dog and cat food in the
country
>if it were as toxic as you claim. I wouldn't be happy to be "killing" my
>fish but grannies of America would be shooting the CEO of Ralston Purina if
>he was killing her precious poodles. The class action suits would put them
>out of business. Why hasn't this product been put into food for humans? I
>can't say for sure but the tests on things that go into human beings has
>always been more difficult, time consuming (read expensive) which might
make
>manufacturers unwilling to make the effort.
>
>Vitamin C as an alternative preservative? As stated earlier it breaks down
>to fast in the form most commonly used. As ascorbyl polyphosphate, a
>"locked/more stable" version of vitamin C you would still use way more than
>is currently used. I guess they would go back to using BHA.
>
>I think before I started tossing out all of my flakefood (Wardleys, Tetra,
>OSI and??? - please add others) along with the cat's food I look around and
>wait for that legitimate journal article. I think this is just one more
>example of an uninformed rumor about a product that has no validity.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: H. Hoekstra <hugo at pondlibrary.org>
>To: Gary Lange <rainbowfish at pcug.org.au>
>Date: Monday, August 23, 1999 3:24 PM
>Subject: Re: [RML] Re: ethoxyquin
>
><snip>
>
>>I have read about it but I don't think that you are aware of the dangers
of
>>genetically modified crops, let me just say that there are better
>alternatives
>>than insecticides OR genetically altered crops.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Hugo Hoekstra
>
>
>There were groups of people that were sure that natural gas, when it was
>first introduced would cause the end of the world as we know it. The same
>for electricity and cars and probably indoor plumbing. The "dangers" of
>genetically modified crops will eventually put into the same basket. I DO
>work in the field and although I am now not directly connected with the
>people running many of the tests they often meet with us and I see how hard
>they work to make sure that the products are safe. No other products have
>ever had this much testing done on them and they still pass government
>scrutiny.
>
>Better alternatives than insecticides or genetically altered crops - If we
>eliminated both right now, which part of the global population are you
>willing to write off? Perhaps Europe? They can't produce all of their
>food requirements AND have enough left over to feed mideast Europe AND the
>russians without pesticides. There would be instant worldwide famine if we
>eliminated insecticides. Genetically altered crops, although increasing
all
>of the time still just make up a small portion of the total. Organic
>farming sounds great and there are many instances when it could be added
>under certain conditions but it's just not going to fill the world's needs.
>Maybe you can afford tomatoes and melons at $10 each but a lot of other
>people couldn't. If they all had to be grown organically the prices would
>dramatically rise. To even think that the world could survive without
>either is just plain misinformation.
>
>Please let's stick to fish or experiments that you have first hand
knowledge
>about. Just don't try and tell us that you're breeding Goyder river
>rainbows by the mobs in pH 4.5 water, no water changes at a temperature of
>85 F. :-) Save that one for April Fool's Day.
>
>Gary Lange
>