|
|
|
|
|
I
believe that this chemical could have been what killed my two gerbils
Twilight and Echo. My vet said that their kidneys and liver were
shutting down because a poison could have gotten into the factory by
accident.Well I belive it was Ethoxyquin, a common preservative in pet
foods. I also belive that this is what could have caused my rabbit Kate
to get a tumor (since I fed her Kaytee brand food).
here is an article written by a long-time vet- it's about what he or she has experienced and learned:
Dear Dr. Dzanis;
I am writing to you about the dangers of Ethoxyquin used as a
preservative in many pet foods and human foods. Since you are
responsible for pet food issues within the FDA and will be meeting with
two concerned dog breeders next month concerning the safety of this
chemical, I wish to present my own experiences and knowledge of
Ethoxyquin's toxic affects, first hand.
First of all, let me introduce myself; l am a veterinarian, a
graduate from the University of California Veterinary Medical School,
Davis, California, class of 1960.1 had a small animal practice in San
Ramon, California (a rapidly growing area east of San Francisco) for 31
years and am now retired.
During those many years I saw a change emerging in the disease and
illness of animals presented to me. In the early 1960s, our concerns
were primarily those of infectious agents causing Canine Distemper,
Feline Distemper, Hepatitis, leptospirosis, staph and strep infections,
etc.
However during the 197Os and to the present time we are seeing an
epidemic of chronic degenerative diseases. True, the widely accepted
program of preventative vaccination programs virtually wiped out the
viral caused diseases and antibiotics helped stem the bacterial
infections, but something else is operative here. We are now seeing
both in the animal and human populations, a sharing of chronic
degenerative diseases such as generalized allergies, arthritis,
dermatitis, congestive heart failure, kidney failure, liver
pathologies, diabetes, AIDS, tumors and cancer. Also, lifespans of
animals have shortened during this period.
I remember, as a kid growing up in Nevada seeing Basque
sheep-herders with working dogs living to be 2l-25 years of age. These
dogs were still herding sheep at that age, and the bitches were
delivering litters of healthy puppies at 20 years of age! Today, we are
lucky to find dogs living to be 10 years old, and many of these
suffering from various forms of chronic degenerative disease. Of course
in the 1 940s our air, water and food was clean and virtually free of
chemicals. My shepherd friend's dogs worked in clean air, ate fresh
lamb stew and vegetables and home-baked bread along with his master. As
a dog show veterinarian I have heard many judges say there is a
definite difference to the feel of the muscles and skeleton of dogs in
Australia than those of America. The Australian dogs' muscles are firm,
bones firm and strong cornpared to the "mushy" feel of the American
dogs. Why? Because these animals' diets are vastly different. The
Australian dogs were being fed (until recently-now there is an
emergence of commercial pet food) trimmings from the freshly killed
beef and sheep carcasses, vegetables and fresh grains, ours on
commercial kibble and canned dog food with every chemical residue and
preservative and coloring in the book! And forget all the highly touted
advertising and P.R. by the pet food industry -I say put garbage in get
garbage out!
In the good old days, the family pet ate from the same "pot,, so
to speak, as the owner/family did, and were healthier for it Not only
are chronic degenerative diseases of pets on the increase, but breeders
complain of increasing frequency and numbers of reproductive problems:
irregular estrus cycles, missed conceptions; stillborns, "fading puppy"
syndrome, increased neo-natal deaths and malformed puppies with missing
limbs, organs, hydrocephalus, cleft palates, etc.
Historically, I was first alerted to Ethoxyquin's (heretofore
being referred to as "E") possible health hazard to dogs, when Midge
Harmer, a breeder of German Shepherd show and obedience dogs in Newark,
Delaware contacted me on February 12, 1988. She related her
heartbreaking experience of losing four of her young champions to liver
cancer. Since she had changed nothing in her program of rearing these
dogs except switching their diet to feeding ANF (Advanced Nutritional
Formula), she looked into the ingredients and found "E" as a
preservative. She asked me if I had any experience with this
preservative and its affect on animal health. Thus started a four-year
quest into finding out all we could on this chemical. I hadn't any
known knowledge about or its related toxic affects to animal health
until I started looking into it. I next met a breeder at the Golden
Gate Dog Show in San Francisco that same year. She told me of suddenly
developing 82% mortality in her puppies (Mm. Pinchers, and Boston
Terriers). Out of 27 puppies born she was lucky to save 5. Many others
were stillborn and malformed with cleft palates, and hydrocephalus.
These problems were atypical. She had not changed any variables
(including breeding stock) except for changing the diet to ANF because
of the highly favorable advertising put out by the manufacturers.
I contacted the Dept. of Agriculture for toxicology information on
"E." They sent me a copy from their Farm Chemical Hand-book listing "E"
as a pesticide, used in fruit scald control. It is also used as a
rubber preservative. I have since learned "E" is FDA approved for use
as an antioxidant for carotenes vitamin A and E and the prevention of
the development of organic peroxides. It is approved at 150 ppm in
paprika and chili powder, and because it is used as a preservative in
livestock feed, the following residue allowances in human consumed
animal products as follows: 5 ppm in or on the uncooked fat of meat
from animals except poultry; 3 ppm in or on the uncooked liver and fat
of poultry, 0.5 ppm in or on the uncooked muscle meat of animals, 0.5
ppm in poultry eggs, and zero in milk.
We have learned "E" is used as a preservative in such widely
marketed dog foods as ANF, NutriMax, Hills Prescription Diet WID (sold
in vet hospitals!), Nutro, Purina, IAMS, Royal Canine USA; and in
livestock feeds by Willowbrook Mills in Petaluma to preserve Crumbles
for laying chickens, and dehydrated forage crops of alfalfa, barley,
clovers, corn, oats, wheat, fescue and various grasses. The above
information brings up the question why the FDA allows such a small
amount of "E" residue (5 to .5 ppm) in human consumed foods yet allows
such high amounts (150 ppm) to be used in petfood and livestock feeds?
In the case of the dog, pound for pound, a dog weighs 115 to 1/lath
(NOTE: this figure or word did not come through) the weight of a human
(except for giant breeds of dogs) yet is consuming 300 times more "E"
than allowed for people. Also many dog food manufacturers are not
listing "E" as an ingredient on the packaging. Only under much
investigation will they admit it. Isn't there an FDA regulation about
labeling ingredients? Truth in labeling is another issue - ANF, which
incidentally is one of the most expensive dog foods, is touted by the
manufacturer as an "all natural formula" with no preservatives, yet
lists "E" as an antioxidant which they claim to be quite safe.
Correspondence with various people revealed other dog owners
breeders having sad experiences with pets eating "E" preserved dog
food:
1. A breeder of Rottweilers lost a dog with liver cancer after switching to feeding ANF for 6 months.
2. A German Shepherd breeder lost a stud dog to cancer of the mouth, feeding dog food containing "E."
3. A woman had skin allergies develop in her German Shepherd fed on
NutroMax ("E" preserved) and then switched to Solid Gold (no "E") with
the dermatitis allergy disappearing.
4. Dr. Pia Peters, Ph.D. claims that when she was studying in
Ireland for her degree in agriculture (1983-4) she became interested in
a news story relating that farmers in Italy suddenly had calves born
with eyes on the backs of their heads, no ears, two or three legs only,
or legs developing turned backwards, etc. Dr. Peters claims the culprit
was "E" in the animal feed fed to the breeding stock.
5. A breeder first of Poodles, then Collies, had been free of
whelping problems; her bitches came into estrus every 6 months "like
clockwork," and all whelped normal healthy litters, then a few years
ago she began noticing changes in the dogs' overall appearance. She was
now seeing dry, lustreless coats, flaky skin, and nose pigmentation
fading. A friend of hers who raises labradors, Newfoundlands, Collies,
and Old English Sheep dogs, had similar problems. Then Elaine's Blue
Merle stud dog (sire of all her dogs) began drooling and bleeding from
the mouth. From a biopsy, her veterinarian diagnosed an immune
breakdown triggered by a virus or chemical. Her bitches who had not
previously come into estrus were now delivering litters of malformed
puppies; two were born without legs, tails or any sex organs. (the
problems in these two kennels were traced to a change in diet fed the
dogs, from one free of "E" preservative to a dog food with "E"
preservative.)
6. Another German Shepherd breeder in Pennsylvania lost a puppy
fed Pro Plan ("E" preserved) to a fast growing cancer in both hips.
Some of the damning information on "E" comes from Monsanto's own
cautionary warnings in using and handling this product. They warn that
it may cause allergic skin reactions, irritation to the eyes and skin.
They advise that workers must wear eye and respiratory protection. The
container of "E" has a very prominent skull and crossbones with POISON
written in capital letters. "E" is listed and identified as a hazardous
chemical under the criteria of the Osha Hazard Communication Standard
(29 CFR 1910, 1220). Monsanto further states the disclaimer regarding
the use of "E," that "Although the information and recommendations set
forth herein are presented in good faith. . . Monsanto Company makes no
representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. Information
supplied upon the condition that the persons receiving same will make
their own determination as to its suitability for their purposes prior
to use. Monsanto will not be responsible for damages of any nature
whatsoever resulting from the use of or reliance upon information." If
the company who makes it won't stand behin4 it, how can the general
public accept its safety as a preservative for their pets' food and
directly for themselves and indirectly as residues in human consumptive
food products from "E's" use in livestock feed?)
I further learned from the Chemical Toxicology of Commercial
Products (Ref. Gosselin et al., 1984) that "E" has a toxic rating of 3
(on a scale of 1~, with 6 being super toxic requiring less than 7 drops
to produce death), slowly developing depression, con-vulsions, coma and
death; skin irritation and liver damage.
I wrote a letter to my Board of Examiners in Veterinary Medicine,
expressing my concern about the safety of feeding dogs foods with "E"
as a preservative. I urged them to look into the matter and suggested
that with such information wouldn't it be prudent to recommend to the
FDA to ban "E" as a preservative until more definite safety studies be
made? The Board responded that I was "overreacting" without scientific
proven evidence that the food is the cause of problems cited and that I
"refrain from voicing my opinions until there is proven scientific and
official evidence that those opinions are true." The Board was
complacent with the FDA approval of "E" based on a five-year safety
study done on dogs by Monsanto some 30 plus years ago. That study, I
found was grossly incompetent.
Let me tell you about what I learned about this so-called
scientific" study by Monsanto. The study is fraught with incompetent,
slip-shod methods, and erroneous conclusions that by today's standards
of testing would be laughed out of the room. For example, there were
never any truly controlled studies on these dogs with the only variable
being the feeding or not feeding of "E" and then evaluating the health
results. Instead, bitches were kept with males, some dogs were kept
indoors, others outdoors, there was no preventative care of vaccination
and parasite control so all dogs could start equally - many dogs in the
study succumbed to Canine Distemper, Hepatitis and one from Heartworm.
Many showed heavy parasite infestations, and fight wounds, etc. E" was
fed on a one time a day, 5 days a week basis instead of twice daily 7
days a week which is routinely done in the "real world" by dog owners.
Of the 67 puppies who were unfortunate enough to be born during this 5
year study, 32 puppies died. That's a 50% mortality rate!
The "scientists" claimed the deaths were due to "under developed
and weak puppies"! Isn't that exactly what we are seeing in litters
from breeding stock fed dog food preserved with "E"? To my knowledge
nothing was reported in the study of the appearance of coat,
pigmentation of the nose, skin health, etc. Changes like these would be
an early indicator of liver and immune system pathology. Another
discrepancy is the lowered frequency of feedings and relatively short
time of the study (5 years vs. 6 or more years of feeding "E" preserved
food and seeing cancer developing.) Nothing, to my knowledge, was
reported in the study of the nature of the reproductive cycles in the
bitches; numbers of missed or irregular estrus, sterility) as we are
seeing clinically. Was any blood work done? Liver and thyroid panels?
I believe not. I believe it is highly unethical for self serving
employees to be the scientists in charge of evaluating a product's
safety manufactured by the company who pays their salaries! I would
like the FDA to foster safety studies on products by independent
testers other than the manufacturer of the product. Perhaps such a plan
could be funded by a safety study "fee" levied on the manufacturer who
is applying for FDA approval of their product. These monies could then
be paid directly by the FDA to the independent testers, thus minimizing
possible bias in the report findings.
While we're on the subject of product safety studies using live
animals I must voice a deeply felt objection to the use of live animals
in any research study. It has been proven many times that there are
viable alternatives to live animal models, i.e., computer model
software, tissue culture and embryo studies. Why not use the tissue
cultures of the target organs affected by chemicals? These as you know
are the brain, nervous system. endocrine glands (pituitary, adrenal,
testes and ovaries, thyroid, thymus, pancreas, etc.) as well as those
of the immune system (spleen, liver, lymph nodes, bone marrow, etc.),
and are the most acutely sensitive to any toxic substance or radiation.
This is where pathology starts immediately. It's months or years later
before the whole organism shows signs of illness. I firmly believe all
animals were created equal with man by our Creator, and that the Animal
Kingdom has given its silent permission to man to provide him with
sustenance, creature comfort, transportation, as beasts of burden and
in the case of our pet animals, their unconditional love. Is this how
we repay them? Dr. Dzanis, both you and I have a covenant with the
Animal Kingdom from the day we graduated from Vet School and took the
Hippocratic Oath. We solemnly swore to safeguard the health and well
being of all animals and to never do anything to harm them. I have kept
my promise. as I am sure you are keeping yours, but it would do well
for all mankind to take and uphold that oath in today's growing moral
bankruptcy, people are too willing to turn a blind eye and squeeze
every cent out of a transaction at any costs. Perhaps we should rename
it the "Hypocritical Oath??
Author Unknown |
|
|
|