Re: [RML] Re: ethoxyquin

Gary Lange (gwlange at stlnet.com)
Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:03:28 -0500

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