Acana & Orijen..What is going on? No longer Ethoxyquin free? Anyone else notice that Acana no longer says Ethoxyquin Free? :confused: At least I can not find it on the new bags since the formula change. How about Orijen? Does it still state Ethoxyquin Free on it's bags? I saw a post about it on Dogster and now I am worried. |
Their web site states http://www.championpetfoods.com/faq/...reservatives.4 Q | ETHOXYQUIN - Does ORIJEN contain Ethoxyquin? A | Champion’s ingredients and foods are never preserved with Ethoxyquin or any other chemical preservative. Ethoxyquin is typically used as a preservative in fish ingredients, and is commonly found in fish ingredients produced within the United States. Champion uses two kinds of fish ingredients in – fresh fish, and fish meals. FRESH FISH. Our fresh fish is caught wild within our region and arrives FRESH – which is defined as ‘never frozen and with no preservatives’. Our fresh fish never contain Ethoxyquin. FISH MEALS. Ethoxyquin preservatives are common throughout the fish meal supply chain, so Champion works directly with our fish meal suppliers (no brokers or middlemen) and we pay them a premium to have our fish meals preserved with our proprietary blend of Vitamin E and botanical extracts. Our fish meals are never preserved with Ethoxyquin. Champion’s Ethoxyquin standard is set at true trace level, not to exceed 5 ppm (parts per million) of Ethoxyquin, which is 0.0005%, or one half of one thousandth of 1% – the lower limit of what most certified laboratories are able to detect or measure. If they have a standard and measure it...doesn't that contradict the "Our fresh fish never contain Ethoxyquin"???????:confused: I sent an email but have not received an answer. I know te bags used to state NO Ethoxyquin.. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It is not stated on the front of the new formula bags like it was before. I KNOW it was on the bags before but can not see it any where now. Is it on your bags? It also no longer states NO Ethoxyquin for the Acana pages for the individual 3 grain free foods nor or their white pages info. I have to go to the Champion Home page FAQ to get the quote above about Ethoxyquin in their products. |
The key here is their statement: not to exceed 5 ppm (parts per million) of Ethoxyquin, which is 0.0005%, or one half of one thousandth of 1% – the lower limit of what most certified laboratories are able to detect or measure. In other words, they test for it to try and certify that their food does not contain ethoxyquin. But the testing laboratories can only detect ethoxyquin if it is 0.0005% or greater. It has to be this high (and that really is an incredibly small amount) before the most sensitive testing equipment and best test methods could ever detect it if trying to find it. So they can't legally state that it isn't there, only that it is "undetectable." Based on the lab capabilities, there is no way to prove it is "zero," this is the best they can do to show that the food doesn't contain the carcinogen. They know they don't add it to their formula, and they know that their fish comes in fresh and none is added to their fish before they receive it. That, along with their testing that shows it can't be detected using the most sensitive test methods is enough for me. (I have a BS in Chemistry). I insist that my dog's food be ethoxyquin-free, and I would not have any reservations in feeding Acana or Origen. |
Quote:
So does that mean that NO company can state their product is Ethoxyquin Free? I thought all the companies on the Ethoxyquin Free list on another thread here at YT said they were Ethoxyquin Free?:confused: |
They don't add ethoxyquin, and their ingredient suppliers don't add it either. Don't confuse that comforting fact with the current capabilities of laboratory test methods/equipment and the minimum amount of ethoxyquin that those test methods are able to detect. It is two different issues, IMO. If they are using the most sensitive tests available (that would be the question to ask them), they can't do any better than that when it comes to a laboratory analysis. Should equipment/methods improve and be able to detect even lower amounts, say one in 10 billion (0.000001%) or one in a trillion (0.00000001%), the test result could still never be reported as zero (it would still have to be reported as "less than 0.00000001%" or whatever). There will never be a test sensitive enough on ANY contaminant that a lab will report as "zero." That doesn't mean that the contaminant is there. It just means that they've done the most rigorous testing possible and can't find any. Just because they've adopted a standard for ethoxyquin doesn't mean that it is in there, either. You have to have a standard in order to make a judgment, to know whether something passes or fails. Their standard appears to be equal to the very smallest amount that is capable of being detected in their lab tests. That is all they can do (assuming, again, that there aren't better test methods available). They could make the standard lower (say 1ppm instead of 5ppm), but if there aren't test methods that exist anywhere that can detect it at a 1ppm level, then a 1ppm standard is meaningless. There are contaminant standards on human food ingredients, too -- like heavy metals. Limits are set, and testing has to be done to prove that that the standard is met. If there is a standard, at least you know they are required to test for the contaminant. OK, so they don't add ethoxyquin and their suppliers don't add it. It isn't naturally occurring so I don't know how it could otherwise get in there. I'm not concerned with the way their report their test results or where they set their standard. (The standard is as low as it can possibly be based on the test capabilities, so if it is picked up at all, the product FAILS). The only question I see is: Are you using the most sensitive test methods available for picking up ethoxyquin? If not, why not? What kind of results are obtained when you do use the most sensitive method available? (Should be "less than whatever" or "undectable," can never be stated as zero). |
OK I just found a source on the internet (don't know how reliable it is) that states that the ethoxyquin standard for uncooked human food ranges from 0.5 to 5ppm, depending on the type of food. The ethoxyquin is used in animal feed and will be in uncooked fats of beef, poultry, etc.). The limits (standards) are: 150 ppm in paprika and chili powder :eek:, 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 undectable in milk. This tells me four things: 1) It is found in trace amounts in human food, too.:eek: 2) If the same protein sources are used in the dog food, there will also be ethoxyquin in the dog food. 3) Acana / Origen standards (5ppm) for ethoxyquin are similar to the standards required for human food. If 5ppm is low enough to be safe for humans (not saying it is), is it also OK for our pets? 4) If poultry eggs have a standard of 0.5 ppm, then there is a more sensitive test method available than what Acana/Origen is using to see if the food meets their standard. What to do? If organic proteins are used in the manufacture of the dog food, I would take it that means that the animal feed wouldn't contain ethoxyquin, and therefore it couldn't be introduced into the dog food via the protein source. Also, a food that uses fresh-caught fish would be an option? I'm just thinking of possibilities here. How do they know that under 5 ppm is safe for humans or dogs? What testing was used to determine this? If it is used to preserve fats, then it would have to be fat-soluble, which means (like the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K), if you get too much it builds up in the fat of the creature that is consuming it. It would build up in anything fatty, like the brain, liver, etc, not just your butt.:confused: |
Interesting reading. Now I'm really curious - I quit feeding TOTW Pacific Stream because it may contain ethoxyquin not to exceed 5ppm - the same amount as stated by Champion. So, if Champion is now admitting their foods may contain ethoxyquin, is everyone still going to feed it? How worried do we need to be about all this? I'm so confused! |
Quote:
Champion Foods include Orijen and Acana for those who may not know. |
I am confused? Is Orijen safe :confused: |
And I was going to switch Quote:
to Origin while I figure out my choices...:( |
Quote:
Since they cannot legally state 'no ethoxyquin', were they probably forced to remove it to protect themselves from lawsuit; although they know it's not there? |
Quote:
|
I believe them completely, you know that they always have a hard time sourcing fish in the winter, last 4 years that I can remember, there's always a shortage. With that being said, all the other manufacturers that have an all fish formula, have no issues sourcing fish. I know, I sell many different brands of food. When they say their fish is from their region, the data supports their claim. If they were going to different suppliers to overcome the shortages, their will be no shortage. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2003 - 2018 YorkieTalk.com
Privacy Policy - Terms of Use