ethoxoquin in fish meal question

Comment

Comment by Ann Rader on October 20, 2009 at 4:18pm

Thank you, Regis! All the best, Ann Rader

Comment by Regis LESAFFRE on October 16, 2009 at 4:58am

Hello,
I had this following information that the UNO rule n° 2216, class OMI : 9, for maritim transport (annex 1), writes that to avoid spontaneous combustion, an incorporation of 400 to 1000 ppm ethoxyquin during fish meal production is requested.
Best regards.
Régis

Comment by Ann Rader on October 13, 2009 at 9:50pm

Melody, thank you so much, this is valuable info -- and thanks for taking time to inform on this subject. We really apprectiate it. I did receive some information from someone at Texas A & M and that information states that fishmeal is sometimes self-combustible and when in transport at sea some form of anitioxidant is required for that reason, depending on circumstances.

Comment by Melody McKinnon on October 9, 2009 at 12:01pm

While I certainly could be wrong and it varies from country to country, I believe this is a case of extremists taking a bit of information and running with it. This does pets absolutely no good and casts a bad light on what could be a legit cause.

The only regulation regarding ethoxyquin requirements in fishmeal (to my knowledge) refers to fishmeal in transport by vessel in bulk containers, and is there to meet hazardous waste/spills requirements, "non-bulk packaging for hazardous waste materials". If the scraps/meal contains 6-12% water, the fishmeal must contain "100 ppm of anti-oxident (ethoxyquin) at the time of shipment."

There are many fishmeals available today that use only natural antioxidants. I know that because that's all I purchase and I personally obtain them direct from the manufacturer. If a pet food manufacturer wants to switch to make their customers happier, it's not difficult to find. It's often used to feed animals meant for human consumption or those that provide items for human consumption (ie: milk).

Incidentally, it is also a myth that pet foods can use fishmeal or any other ingredient containing ethoxyquin without identifying it on the end product label. That may have changed recently, I don't know, but the regulations are clear on it having to be there. I believe it came from a phrase that fudged the detail before it was regulated and it was perpetuated by competitors defending the ingredient in their own products. One in particular that comes to mind says that the food manufacturer can simply say they don't ADD any ethoxyquin, which misleads consumers and that's precisely why it isn't allowed. Manufacturers have to meet criteria in regards to how much ethoxyquin is in the product, therefore they have to know how much is in each ingredient and the grand total that is in the product is what they are held accountable for. "The label of any animal feed containing the additive shall, in addition to the other information required by the act, bear the statement “Ethoxyquin, a preservative...” Since manufacturers often get their ingredients from various sources or their food manufacturing is outsourced, they can use the statement 'May or may not contain Ethoxyquin', but that's about it these days.

This information is further confused when people read about other animal foods. The majority of pet food regulations apply to your average dogs & cats. They often don't apply to fish food. If you happen upon a website that is talking about pet fish food labels, you're not getting the full picture as it applies to Fido.

Again, they change constantly and vary from country to country, so take that at face value. A quick search in the respective government sites or a phone call will give you the latest information. Forums and those who profit from fear tactics often will not give you a complete picture (at best). The harm they do through misleading people is just as damaging as any industry tactics. I'd like to see an end to both. :-)