Ethoxyquin - Safe or Not?

[Guest]

A quick update on my ethoxyquin inquisition. I emailed Zoomed expressing the same concerns. They replied with:Please note that Ethoxyquin is an approved antioxidant/preservative for addition to pet foods. The ethoxyquin in Hermit Crab Food is present in levels well below that which is deemed safe as determined by the Association of Feed Control Officials in their official publication. This determination was based on “considerable testing for efficacy and safety testing prior to its use in pet foods, animal feeds and in food for human consumption” according to Dr. David Dzanis (Safety of Ethoxyquin in Dog Foods, Journal of Nutrition, 121:S163) and as noted in Petfood Technology. According to Petfood Technology, the negative public perception surrounding Ethoxyquin was due to its being listed by the EPA in the general category of “pesticide” as there was no category for “antioxidant.” As an antioxidant, ethoxyquin is used in small amounts on fruit to prevent rapid ripening and spoilage of the skin. It is because of this use that it was listed as a pesticide by the EPA, even though this is not the function of ethoxyquin. In contrast to chemicals like those found in artificial sweeteners, there have been no scientific studies showing that ethoxyquin causes disease in pets. We are confident that the extremely small amount of ethoxyquin present in our Hermit Crab food should not be a matter of concern, and will not harm your pet. Additionally, the spoilage that may occur by removing this ingredient would be a very real danger to your pet crab(s).Much friendlier than those jerks at FMR.

[KittyCaller]

I think the jury's still out, but I have to say I'd been trying to figure out why Ethoxyquin is so dangerous. It being a component of a pesticide does not make it itself a pesticide. On the other hand, that doesn't mean it's completely harmless either. I've heard that it's the fact that it quite possibly builds up in the hermies that is the problem. The long term ramifications basically. How much and how long does it take, and is it really negligible in the end? I think those questions still need to be answered. I'm not saying it is bad or good, I'm just saying I would like to read some more sources other than a pet company who likes it because it's cheap. (I agree that it was a very good response they sent you though. That's good customer service and speaks well for them)

[Willow]

There has been considerable debate about ethoxyquin with other pets. There are some people who will swear that their pets came down with some horrible side effects after being fed foods containing ethoxyquin. Some breeders reported loss of litters, fading puppies/kittens, mothers dying post-birth, etc. But scientists have never been able to produce similar side effects in their studies. But, then, I doubt they put very much effort into it. I personally will not feed any of my pets anything with ethoxyquin in it (let me tell you how hard it is to find fish food without it!), just to be safe. I don't like the idea of giving them anything with any synthetic preservatives, period. The "the spoilage that may occur by removing this ingredient would be a very real danger to your pet crab(s)" argument has been used by all the pet food manufacturers to justify their use of ethoxyquin, but, since there are natural anti-oxidants that can be used, this argument falls flat. Dog and cat food manufacturers have had to stop using ethoxyquin in their products, because nobody would buy them anymore (maybe some cheap store brands will still have it), and that seems to have worked out well.But, yes, there is no scientific evidence that ethoxyquin will harm your pets. There is some strong anecdotal evidence. Because ethoxyquin-frre food is not hard to find, I don't want to take the chance.

[Jedediah]

The thing why ethoxyquin is so popular is exactly that you need only tiny amounts to preserve food. As far as I can see, it's not immediately harmful, but tiny amounts fed over a period of decades...let's say that worries me. Vitamin E is a good antioxidant that has no ill effects and it's often used to replace ethoxyquin.

[Guest]

"ALright, let's get technical."Sorry, the way it was worded made it sound like the FDA outlawed the use of ethoxyquin in human foods, which is not true of course."No, wrong assumptions. Hobbyists, veterinarians, scientists, people across the board are concerned."You misread my sentence I think. I didn't say they are not concerned, I said there's been no studies by those people proving that ethoxyquin is harmful at the level used, and this is true."The only scientific studies that the FDA considered when approving ethoxyquin, are those submitted by the manufacturers own trial, Monsanto."There's been other studies, some by independent veterinarian schools, that has shown no negative effects from the level of ethoxyquin used. If the perception is that only one study by Monsanto was done, then that's not correct."However, there have been independant studies done with rats, and many of them have shown an extreme potential danger from ethoxyquin."Please clarify? What is extreme potential danger? I would be interested in this, as are others."but on the flip side of the token, there have been no conclusions that ethoxyquin is safe, except those made by the manufacturer."It's actually hard to 'prove' something is completely safe (impossible to prove a negative, etc.), much easier to prove something is harmful (which has not been proven)."If ONE DAY it is PROVEN that ethoxyquin is SAFE for consumption by arthropods, I am ALL for it! However, to take such a chance, going against logic and precaution, seems pretty UNSCIENTIFIC to me."I'll grant you that, but if we treat every substance the way we treat ethoxyquin (dangerous until proven safe to crusteceans), then there's little safe foods we can feed our little friends.Incidentally, in the study involving 0.2 % of ethoxyquin in rats, .2 % is a very very large amount. Much much higher than 1 ppm (by a factor of 2000X). As my pathologist dad frequently said, if you feed that much of almost any substance constantly, something bad is going to happen regardless. Try and feed that much vitamins and see!

[Nicole]

From crabmom:Here is something interesting I found online about an ingredient in many of the foods we feed our crabs:ETHOXYQUIN, CARCINOGENIC,TOXIC FOOD PRESERVATIVE in Pet Foods: A Letter to the FDA[the following is a letter summarizing current research submitted by Gloria Dodd, DVM, to the Federal Food and Drug Administration, Division of Animal Feeds, on the subject of the pet food preservative Ethoxyquin, which may or may not be included in ingredients on product label, but is in every food containing fat and animal by-products.]August 17, 1992Dr. David A. DzanisVeterinary NutritionistDiv. of Animal Feeds; FDA HFV-2227500 Standish Place Rockville, MD 20855Dear 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-, I 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 1970s 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.1 remember, as a kid growing up in Nevada seeing Basque sheepherders with working dogs living to be 20-25 years of age. These dogs were still herding sheep at that age, and the *****es 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 1940s 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 compared 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 neonatal 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 �E� 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 (Min. 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 Handbook 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 are 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, Eagle Dog Food, NutriMax, Hills Prescription Diet W/D (sold in vet hospitals!), Nutro, Purina, LAMS, Royal Canine USA; and in livestock feeds by Willowbrook Mills in Petaluma to preserve Lay 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 pet food and livestock feeds? In the case of the dog, pound for pound, a dog weighs 1/5 to 1/10th 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 de

velop in her German Shepherd fed on NutroMax (�E� preserved) and then switched to Solid Gold with the dermatitis allergy disappearing.4. Dr. Pia Peters, Ph.D. claims that when she was studying in Ireland for her degree in agriculture (1983-84) 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. This feed was imported from the US, with the farmers writing then President Bush Sr., to please ban Ethoxyquin in livestock feed. Which of course was not done.5. A breeder first of Poodles, then Collies, had been free of whelping problems; her *****es came into estrus every 6 months �like clockwork,� and all whelped normal healthy litters, then afew years ago she began noticing changes in the dogs� overall appearance. She was now seeing dry, lusterless 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 *****es that 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 ****ing 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 behind 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 1-6, with 6 being super toxic requiring less than 7 drops to produce death), slowly developing depression, convulsions, 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, *****es 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 that 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 *****es; 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, endocrineglands (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
a
nimals 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�? Please let me know what response the FDA will be taking.Sincerely,Gloria Dodd DVM�This was the end of the letter and for 4 years corresponding with the FDA they repeatedly responded with �We are looking into the matter�. Which of course they weren�t, so I took it to the public with newsletters, audiocassette tapes, Diane Stein�s book and in 1999 the creation of my website: http://www.holisticvetpetcare.comAll products mentioned are found in the product section of my electronic storebio-terrorist.htm-- West Nile Virus Symptoms and Remedies -- Bio-Terrorist Anthrax First Aid Products ----christmas-2002.htm Basic Healing Packages for Pets and People -- -- Research Articles -- Monthly Specials --Testimonials -- other_links.htm-- Why Animals Get Sick -- Noxious Energy Fields -- Radiation -- Disease & Medicine --tapes.htm-- Audio Tapes -- How to Save your Pet's Life! -- Kirlian Photos -- Other Links -- -- Healing Halter�-- Newsletters --Tip of the Month -- Poster Pet of the Month -- About Us -- -- Consultations -- First Aid Kit -- Books-- Homeopathy Remedies -- With first order of $100 or more receive Detox-Blue-Green-Papers and Newsletter #7 Price Reduction on Trail and First Aid Kits P. O. Box 1242Gualala, CA 9544524 hour Telephone and Fax (707) 785-9171Email everglo@mcn.org

[GSnicklegrove]

No studies. However, ethioxyquin is a major concern for all living things, and many vets and others. The FDA has outlawed it's use directly in human food, with the highest trace allowable of .05 PPM. Mammal stuff aside, a big killer of crustaceans and cause of moulting abnormalities is run-off from agricultural land.Most people who know about ethioxyquin, and have done research, are weary of it, and any crustacean/arthropod enthusiast should be concerned about feeding any pesticide/herbicide in any amount as well. Myself, with tons of unknowns surrounding this issue, cannot justify recommending ethioxyquin products to any hermit crab owner. Afterall, if ethioxyquin is so safe for arthropod use, how come it is not in the other commercial diets for arthropods?Many of us reptile owners are leary of products that contain ethioxyquin for both our reptiles and feeder insects. First, it has no health benefit, second, there have been too many reported problems in some reptiles whose diets contain E, BHT and BHA. Of course, nothing in a diet is all one thing, the feeding of a pesticide in any amount to an arthropod does not make the best sense though.Some people, I know, view and keep pets with different philosophies. In my case, my pets are considered my family, and even my reptiles get state of the art veterinary care. The best, state of the art food is naturally what I recommend.This is from my point of view, of course, but I aim at keeping my crabs as healthy, happy and long lived as I can in captivity, and everything I do works towards that goal.Gertie

[GSnicklegrove]

>>>"The FDA has outlawed it's use directly in human food, with the highest trace allowable of .05 PPM."This is not technically correct. The FDA do allow ethoxyquin in human foods.<<<ALright, let's get technical. The FDA has outlawed the direct use of ethoxyquin in human foods, with the maxiumum amount allowable being .05 ppm, with the exceptions of Paprika and CHili Powder. However, since those spices are not used directly in heavy amounts, it is reasoned it is safe.>>>"Most people who know about ethioxyquin, and have done research, are weary of it, and any crustacean/arthropod enthusiast should be concerned about feeding any pesticide/herbicide in any amount as well."I'm assuming you are referring to hobbyists here, as there has been no scientific studies that proved ethoxyquin causes harmful effects at the levels used.<<<No, wrong assumptions. Hobbyists, veterinarians, scientists, people across the board are concerned. There will be new recommendations for suggested ethoxyquin usage coming out next year.The only scientific studies that the FDA considered when approving ethoxyquin, are those submitted by the manufacturers own trial, Monsanto. After 30 years of complaints to the FDA, the FDA has never opened a new investigation of ethoxyquin, or any independant studies.However, there have been independant studies done with rats, and many of them have shown an extreme potential danger from ethoxyquin.>>>Here's a good article on the subject. In short, there has not been any conclusion evidence about ethoxyquin being harmful, only anecdotal. And being that it reduces the amount BHA and BHT needed, the good outweights the potential effects. In any case, any large amount of substance (including vitamins) can be harmful. Considering the amount used in Jurassi-Diet is much lower than the maximum allowed (1 ppm to 100 ppm), we should keep everything in perspective.<<<There are alot of "good" articles on the subject. You say there has not been any conclusion that ethoxyquin is unsafe, I grant you that, otherwise it WOULDN"T be so controversial, but on the flip side of the token, there have been no conclusions that ethoxyquin is safe, except those made by the manufacturer.Because the FDA does exremely little independant testing of its own, to approve products for human consumption, it is constantly recalling products, that have later proven for 30-50 years of use to be carcinogenic.However, that is all besides the fact. WE can talk all day about whether or not ethoxyquin is safe, harmful, carcinogenic to humans, goats, rats, etc.Let that not override the concerns we have about ethoxyquin being a pesticide/herbicide that we are feeding in trace amounts to arthropods. That's the issue, isn't it?If ONE DAY it is PROVEN that ethoxyquin is SAFE for consumption by arthropods, I am ALL for it! However, to take such a chance, going against logic and precaution, seems pretty UNSCIENTIFIC to me.Gertie

[Nicole]

From GSnicklegrove:Scary stuff!I have seen pictures of some of the farmers tending Monsanto's genetically engineered celery and corn fields. The farmhands had rashes all over their bodies from harvesting. This is why until there are some real long term studies, people in Europe, Africa, etc. are banning many bioengineered foods, and there are strict labeling requirements for foods that have even a little of these monster crops. Not that I am against finding ways to increase crop yields, but I am against the American population being the guinea pigs for such experiments. As I look around at all these people who have had cancer (myself included), I see a big connection with the quality of our food supply and environmental quality. If this is so bad for humans (E, pesticides, other chemicals and contamination), than I can only imagine what companies get away with pet food.The sad, corrupted fact to all of this, the FDA relies on companies own testing only. Occassionally, like the IRS, if there are abunch of red flags they will do an audit of the tests. A few hundred products get looked at throughly each year, yet thousands are approved by the FDA yearly.Every year I check out the lists at the FDA web site, to see the hundreds of ingredients that the FDA has recalled approval on. After many mishaps or fatalities, that's when action is taken.By the way, most big companies like Monsanto have top level employees who take turns working at the FDA. They say this or that person is on "sabatical".I think this is so sad. For you, for me, for our hermie friends and all other lving creatures.I am sorry, I went on a rant, but this is just so upsetting. Yet another example, of thousands of products that have no business being consumed by any living creature.This all reminds me of Asparteme. It is in most children's vitamins, and a host of other things from gum to drinks. It has been linked to hundreds of thousands of debilatative disease in humans, especially immune and ms disorders. I bring this up, so people know to check for this ingredient both in their children's snacks and foods, as well as any treat food you give your hermit crabs.

[Guest]

I'm not a big fan of too much chemicals in foods, however, would like to touch on a few points."The FDA has outlawed it's use directly in human food, with the highest trace allowable of .05 PPM."This is not technically correct. The FDA do allow ethoxyquin in human foods."Most people who know about ethioxyquin, and have done research, are weary of it, and any crustacean/arthropod enthusiast should be concerned about feeding any pesticide/herbicide in any amount as well."I'm assuming you are referring to hobbyists here, as there has been no scientific studies that proved ethoxyquin causes harmful effects at the levels used.Here's a good article on the subject. In short, there has not been any conclusive evidence about ethoxyquin being harmful, only anecdotal. And being that it reduces the amount BHA and BHT needed, the good outweights the potential effects. In any case, any large amount of substance (including vitamins) can be harmful. Considering the amount used in Jurassi-Diet is much lower than the maximum allowed (1 ppm to 100 ppm), we should keep everything in perspective.http://www.golden-retriever.com/ethoxyq ... xyquin.htm