# Does your dog food use ethoxyquin? It might....



## Renoman (Mar 20, 2007)

Read all the way down the list.. interesting..

http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/ar...ents-Not-Listed-on-Pet-Food-Labels/Page1.html


----------



## digits mama (Jun 13, 2007)

Very good to know. I feed raw but when we travel i feed natural balance sweet potato and fish...Guess I wont be doing that anymore..


----------



## Renoman (Mar 20, 2007)

Time for me to start thinking about raw....

Just put an ad on Freecycle.. looking for a freezer....


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Interesting. From what I have read, Wellness also uses Mixed Tocopherols as a preservative. Their website says "This is a naturally preserved product." I'll be watching for Wellness to be added to the list.

I also read somewhere that ethoxyquin is required by law to preserve fish...


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

Wow... I'm glad TOTW is too expensive for me to buy up here. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Acana (Champion pet foods) doesn't get added to the "uses" list.

ETA: I couldn't remember if Acana stated whether or not the used it. The bag states that they use ETQ free fish ingredients.


----------



## 5 s corral (Dec 31, 2007)

thanks so much for the great information 
i have a bag of premium edge fish that i will be takeing back 
jamie


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

I think Orijen and Acana are fine because they don't buy fish meal from other companies and they make it themselves plus the fish is local and not imported from the US or China.

Here's what Orijen's website says:


> Our fresh poultry, meats and fish all produced within our region and meet the AAFCO definition for fresh, where refrigeration is the only form of preservation. No preservatives are used and our local ingredients are never frozen.


I think Innova and EVO are safe too because they also have their own manufacturing plants and don't buy meat meals?


----------



## PureMutt (Feb 6, 2009)

Fish comes preseved with ethoxyquin from the supplier. This is required by USDA. After it is cooked it dilutes it to none harmful properties, safe for either human or animal consumption.


----------



## Kina_A (Jun 8, 2009)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> I think Innova and EVO are safe too because they also have their own manufacturing plants and don't buy meat meals?


Yeah, Innova, California Natural and Evo are safe.

California Natural, Innova, Evo Pet Foods 
“Fish meal is preserved with Vitamin E and mixed tocopherols.”


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

PureMutt said:


> Fish comes preseved with ethoxyquin from the supplier. This is required by USDA. After it is cooked it dilutes it to none harmful properties, safe for either human or animal consumption.


Thats what I thought. So really, they all have trace amounts of ethoxyquin if they contain fish.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

I emailed Nature's Variety (the brand I use) and asked them about this. This was their reply:



> Thank you for emailing. There are some rumors floating around about fish meal and ethoxyquin preservation. First, ethoxyquin cannot be destroyed by manufacturing conditions and any manufacturer who makes this claim is incorrect.
> 
> Secondly, most rumors of ethoxyquin and fish meal preservation are from unsubstantiated websites (http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/dogfoods.html#fish meal for example). The websites mentions the Code of Federal Regulations, and if you read the actual code carefully, it simply implies that fishmeal/fish scrap on a shipping vessel entering US waters/ports needs to be heavily preserved with an antioxidant, the _recommendation_ being ethoxyquin. This applies only to fish meal that is shipped; Nature's Variety fish meal is not shipped. Our fish is frozen at sea to prevent degradation and immediately processed into a fish meal once it reaches the manufacturing facility. We have a special contract to ensure our fish meals are naturally preserved.
> 
> ...


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Pai said:


> I emailed Nature's Variety (the brand I use) and asked them about this. This was their reply:


Very good! Thanks for posting this! I feed my dogs raw, but use NV raw once in a great while. We also sell NV exclusively in our store, so this info is good to know & I was going to e-mail them myself tomorrow.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

CorgiKarma said:


> Thats what I thought. So really, they all have trace amounts of ethoxyquin if they contain fish.


Not unless their food isn't made in the US. There's no such requirement in Canada or even the UK I believe.


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

CorgiKarma said:


> Thats what I thought. So really, they all have trace amounts of ethoxyquin if they contain fish.


From what I've gathered since reading this thread and doing a little digging is that no, they don't all have trace amounts of ETQ. Some do and some don't.


----------



## Mason (Sep 17, 2008)

@CorgiKarma: Wellness does not contain ethoxyquin. It states on their bags..at least on the Core Ocean that there is absolutely no ethoxyquin in the food. They obtain their fish ingredients fresh. As soon as that is removed from the bag, I'll stop feeding it. Hopefully, they will not (*crosses fingers*), as its the only food my pup has truly done well on.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

I was replying to what MissMutt said. I have read elsewhere that the USDA requires all fish to be preserved with ethoxyquin.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

CorgiKarma said:


> I was replying to what MissMutt said. I have read elsewhere that the USDA requires all fish to be preserved with ethoxyquin.


It doesn't require it, it _recommends_ it, and only for fish shipped in from outside U.S. waters.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Pai said:


> It doesn't require it, it _recommends_ it, and only for fish shipped in from outside U.S. waters.


Good. I was only relaying what I have read.


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

I just did some searching on the FDA website. I have not yet found anything that says that ethoxyquin HAS to be used in the preservation of fish meal, just that a preservative MUST be used. 

I found this bit to be interesting...



> Some consumers try to avoid pet foods with synthetic preservatives, such as butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), and ethoxyquin. Ethoxyquin, in particular, has been hotly debated. Current scientific data suggest that ethoxyquin is safe, but some pet owners avoid this additive because of a suspected link to liver damage and other health problems in dogs. CVM has asked pet food producers to voluntarily lower their maximum level of ethoxyquin in dog food while more studies are being conducted on this preservative, and the industry is cooperating.
> 
> Many products preserved with naturally occurring compounds, such as tocopherols (vitamin E) or vitamin C, are available. These products have a much shorter shelf life than those with synthetic preservatives, especially once a bag of food is opened.


Here is the link to where I found this http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/FDAVeterinarianNewsletter/ucm130726.htm


----------



## mrslloyd09 (Jul 12, 2009)

So I just ran to the fridge to check the wet food that I feed Mandie. It's Wellness Whitefish and Sweet potato or something like that and I didn't know ethoxyquin was used in preservation of fish. We're good but I kind of kicked myself for not checking since I did with her dry food. I just *assumed* since it was made by the same company, that they were fine. Which is funny because when I kept hamsters, I knew I had to check every product because different products from the same company had the preservative, while others didn't. Good reminder to remain diligent.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

CorgiKarma said:


> I was replying to what MissMutt said. I have read elsewhere that the USDA requires all fish to be preserved with ethoxyquin.


Replying to me? But I haven't even posted in this thread yet! 

Nevertheless I'm glad I stumbled on this thread, NV is the front runner for Marge's new kibble, should I decide to switch from Merrick.


----------



## MoonStr80 (Oct 9, 2006)

Ok, this has given me a shock we're feeding Eagle Pack Holistic Select Fish & Wellness Core Reduced Fat am I safe?



CorgiKarma said:


> Interesting. From what I have read, Wellness also uses Mixed Tocopherols as a preservative. Their website says "This is a naturally preserved product." I'll be watching for Wellness to be added to the list.
> 
> I also read somewhere that ethoxyquin is required by law to preserve fish...


Here are statements from Naturapet and Wellness representatives ethoxoquin in response to ethoxyquin inquires made earlier this Spring:

*Naturapet*: "the fish used in our products is free from chemical preservatives such as ethoxyquin, BHA and BHT. We also guarantee that all products and finished products are free from ethoxyquin, BHA and BHT."

Wellness: "Our pet food products are 100% ethoxyquin free. Our fish meal supplier has obtained the necessary permit to utilize a natural antioxidant made from blended mixed tocopherols in place of ethoxyquin to preserve the fish meal during transit."

Conversely, this was the response from *Diamond*:

"The preservation systems used by our vendors are all legal, but are considered by them to be proprietary information. However, we know that the heat from our pet food process destroys whatever antioxidants are used in the ingredients that we purchase. After the heat process (extrusion and drying), we apply natural tocopherols (Vitamin E) in order to carry the shelf life of the food. Diamond does not preserve any of its products with ethoxyquin, only with mixed tocopherols.

There is a law that requires fish meal to be preserved with ethoxyquin. The following is a link to that law: http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/fishmeal.html


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

Yes, if it's supplied from outside of the U.S.. I did quite a lot of searching on the FDA's webite and no where did I find that the use of ETQ is required, just recommended. The only thing the FDA requires is that a preservative be used.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> Replying to me? But I haven't even posted in this thread yet!
> 
> Nevertheless I'm glad I stumbled on this thread, NV is the front runner for Marge's new kibble, should I decide to switch from Merrick.


PureMutt! Sorry about that haha!

Moonstr80, I'm glad to hear that. Thats what I thought, and what their labels say.


----------



## MoonStr80 (Oct 9, 2006)

CorgiKarma said:


> Moonstr80, I'm glad to hear that. Thats what I thought, and what their labels say.


Yeppers! We're both on safe side  So lets stick with Wellness Core


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

If anyone cares:

http://www.petfoodindustry.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=12892#Scene_1



source said:


> ...ethoxyquin can be toxic at megadoses (the LD50 for rats and mice is 1,920 and 1,730 mg/kg BW, respectively) but so can such staple nutrients like vitamin A and selenium.


So a lethal dose for your 20 kg dog (about 45 pounds) is something like 20 grams of the substance (about an ounce), assuming that the physiologies of rats and dogs aren't too different. (This isn't such a stretch, but take it as you will.)



> Many of the critics of ethoxyquin unequivocally claim that it is unsafe. While there is evidence to suggest that at high doses ethoxyquin may cause reproductive diseases, dermatological, hepatic, renal and thyroid problems, as well as carcinogenesis in dogs, there is really no evidence to support this position in dogs or cats at the FDA-approved levels of ethoxyquin in the diet.


So there doesn't see to be a lot of evidence that this is a bad thing. Of course, just because there's no evidence doesn't mean that there are no ill effects, it only means that someone did a study and found no correlation.

Also note, ethxyquin is found in people food, too:



> Ethoxyquin (see Figure 1) is a synthetic preservative approved for use in animal feeds (including petfood), fish meal, human foods such as chili powder and paprika, meat (residual levels) and as a "pesticide" plant growth regulator to retard scald in pears and apples in the USA and many other countries around the globe.


Finally, what isn't mentioned in the link in the original post is the positive benefits of the chemical:



> Ethoxyquin has been used to retard oxidation of difficult-to-stabilize ingredients such as fish meal, fish oil, polyunsaturated vegetable oils and vitamins (especially the carotenoids like vitamin A) in order to prevent the loss of nutrients and essential fatty acids.
> 
> Further, it has proven effective at preventing the formation of secondary oxidation products which have been shown to have detrimental effects on growth, reproduction and immunity in dogs (Turek, et al., 2002).


The reason that your pet food has ethoxyquin in it is probably because it contains one of the above ingredients, and is there to ensure that the pet food contains the nutrients advertised.


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

If you read the link and quote I provided on the first page from the FDA, they have decided to conduct more research.

That being said, once again, it's a choice. I choose to try to stay away from it. I believe it's a personal choice along with the brand of kibble you choose to feed. My thinking is, is if you can get a food without it, why not do that.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Wynpyp said:


> My thinking is, is if you can get a food without it, why not do that.


I second this. If I can get a food without by-products, corn, ethoxyquin and one that is natural, why wouldn't I?


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

CorgiKarma said:


> I second this. If I can get a food without by-products, corn, ethoxyquin and one that is natural, why wouldn't I?


Because it's not clear that that makes the food better


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

BenTheMan said:


> Because it's not clear that that makes the food better?


Actually even if it's not clear, it shouldn't be worse than the foods with by-products and other stuff so I would still buy it. Even if there is a chance (no proof yet) that it is better for my dog, I would feed that.

Just like if I had a cold and there's a chance that eating oranges or whatever would work and cure my cold, I would try it.

Or once I heard somewhere that raw veggies make cancer grow slower so if I had cancer, even if it's completely unproven I would still try to eat raw veggies.


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> Actually even if it's not clear, it shouldn't be worse than the foods with by-products and other stuff so I would still buy it.


Oh right---it's not better, just more expensive.



> Or once I heard somewhere that raw veggies make cancer grow slower so if I had cancer, even if it's completely unproven I would still try to eat raw veggies.


And if you heard that making hats out of tin foil could prevent the government from reading your thoughts, would you try that, too?


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

BenTheMan said:


> And if you heard that making hats out of tin foil could prevent the government from reading your thoughts, would you try that, too?


It stands to reason that certain things are worth a try. Vitamin C is good for you, so it stands to reason that it would be beneficial to fight off a cold.

I can't understand your point of view on the matter. You always go back to cost. If I can spend a few dollars more to get a food without ethoxyquin, by- products and corn, then to me, the extra cost is worth it. Scientifically proven or not. Apparently, it is not worth it to you, which is fine, you can feed whatever food you like. The point is, I buy organic/natural food for myself. I don't want to eat chemicals. I also don't want my dog to eat chemicals. If I have the ability to buy her a natural food, it stands to reason that I would.


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

BenTheMan said:


> Because it's not clear that that makes the food better


What makes the food better? Being more natural and holistic? Like I said, it's a personal choice. If you want to feed your dog Purina or Pedigree or any other food, that is YOUR choice. If a person wants to feed their dog a more natural food, that is THEIR choice. It is up to the person buying it to make as much of an informed decision as they can and go with what they can. Like it or not... it's a choice that most people make on very little other than recommendations and word of mouth and by reading labels like most people do for their own food.

MSG is ok and non toxic. I choose not to buy foods with it in it cause I don't like MSG and it's not necessarily good for you. It's a personal choice. Just like it is with ETQ. Considering the FDA has chosen to do more research based on the fact that SO many have issues with it tells me something.


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

Hi Corgi---

I understand what you are saying, and I was perhaps a bit too snarky in my reply (although, I did kind of giggle when I typed it).

I guess, at the end of the day, we'll probably just have to disagree on this and live with it, but it all comes down to this:



> ...Scientifically proven or not...


I would prefer to put my faith in what science has to say about some issue, as opposed to trying to use my own intuition, which has failed me too many times to count. I can't prescribe to the notion that ``this is better, just because''. The fact that there seems to be very little trust in any sort of scientific analysis of the questions about dog food is very highly frustrating to me, as a scientist.

//=========== Double post merged



Wynpyp said:


> What makes the food better? Being more natural and holistic? Like I said, it's a personal choice. If you want to feed your dog Purina or Pedigree or any other food, that is YOUR choice. If a person wants to feed their dog a more natural food, that is THEIR choice. It is up to the person buying it to make as much of an informed decision as they can and go with what they can.


I really don't understand why this is such a hot-button topic. The point is that people base their arguments around wild claims that either can't be verified (``Vets only get a two week course in animal nutrition, which is given by Big Dog Food Companies''), have very little basis scientifically (``Ethoxyquin gave my dog cancer''), or rely on some logical fallacy (``Dogs are meat eaters in the wild, therefore, corn based foods are bad for dogs''). Of course, when I point these things out (albeit in a probably too sarcastic and irreverent manner), people get pissed off.

I don't think I have ever advocated any specific brand of dog food, anywhere. (In fact, my pup is currently eating Orijen puppy chow, which she seemed to like a bit more than the Science Diet.) What I've tried to do is take the opposite side in this discussion, and present arguments that maybe people don't want to hear. Apparently, this amounts to ``looking for a fight'', as opposed to ``looking for some discussion''. 

At the end of the day, the choice one makes is a combination of both your subjective feelings, and any objective data that you may have compiled. I've been trying to get some objective facts, because I don't trust my own intuition in the matter.

I really do want to know what is best for my puppy, and I want her to have a long and happy life, fetching me beers from the refrigerator.

//========= Triple post!



Wynpyp said:


> If you read the link and quote I provided on the first page from the FDA, they have decided to conduct more research.


Sorry I missed this. The link looks a bit old (2001). The current situation, though, seems to be little changed:

From http://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/resourcesforyou/ucm047113.htm



FDA said:


> More information on the utility of ethoxyquin is still needed in order for CVM [FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine] to amend the maximum allowable level to below that which would cause these effects, but which still would be useful in preserving the food. While studies are being conducted to ascertain a more accurate minimum effective level of ethoxyquin in dog foods, CVM has asked the pet food industry to voluntarily lower the maximum level of use of ethoxyquin in dog foods from 150 ppm (0.015%) to 75 ppm.


The FDA did ask food manufacturers to lower the amount of ethoxyquin in food, but...



FDA said:


> Regardless, most pet foods that contained ethoxyquin never exceeded the lower amount, even before this recommended change.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

BenTheMan said:


> And if you heard that making hats out of tin foil could prevent the government from reading your thoughts, would you try that, too?


I try things that are reasonable. If someone told me to wear tin foil hats is there any rationalization that the government can't read my thoughts that way?

The veggies for cancer is because veggies are full of vitamins and anti-oxidants that may slow cancer growth and the oranges for vitamin C.

If you rationalize that ethoxyquin and by-products and stuff aren't good for our health there may be a chance that it's not good for dogs either.

I'm sorry if I'm willing to spend money on my dog's food hoping for a chance for my beloved to live longer and healthier. Money isn't an issue for me. 

I also pay $20 more every time I buy a memory card just for a brand even though I know any generic memory card with the same capacity works just as well. 

I also pay $350 for head phones although I'm sure apple's ipod head phones work just as well in that you can hear the music.

I pay what I'm willing to pay and what I believe to be better for my dog. You don't need to make me sound like an idiot just because you don't believe that some pet foods are better and I do.



BenTheMan said:


> I would prefer to put my faith in what science has to say about some issue, as opposed to trying to use my own intuition, which has failed me too many times to count. I can't prescribe to the notion that ``this is better, just because''. The fact that there seems to be very little trust in any sort of scientific analysis of the questions about dog food is very highly frustrating to me, as a scientist.


The question is how extensively dog food brand versus health been researched? How many labs were designed to test this and to find no difference? I don't think it's been researched enough because it takes years to tell the difference in the animals and lots of funding is necessary to provide the food, animals, etc.

I have, however, seen research done on dog dieting (overweight dogs) and the kind of food fed such as high carb, high protein, high fat, etc.
The results showed that dogs fed high protein foods lost weight much quicker and retained more lean muscle than those fed a high carb diet. So food does make a difference if you ask me.

Here's the study:
Dog weight loss high carb vs. high protein



BenTheMan said:


> Of course, when I point these things out people get pissed off.


If you weren't so rude about it, I don't think people would be as pissed off. At least I wouldn't have been.


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

BenTheMan said:


> I really don't understand why this is such a hot-button topic. The point is that people base their arguments around wild claims that either can't be verified (``Vets only get a two week course in animal nutrition, which is given by Big Dog Food Companies''), have very little basis scientifically (``Ethoxyquin gave my dog cancer''), or rely on some logical fallacy (``Dogs are meat eaters in the wild, therefore, corn based foods are bad for dogs''). Of course, when I point these things out (albeit in a probably too sarcastic and irreverent manner), people get pissed off.
> 
> I don't think I have ever advocated any specific brand of dog food, anywhere. (In fact, my pup is currently eating Orijen puppy chow, which she seemed to like a bit more than the Science Diet.) What I've tried to do is take the opposite side in this discussion, and present arguments that maybe people don't want to hear. Apparently, this amounts to ``looking for a fight'', as opposed to ``looking for some discussion''.
> 
> ...


Since you quoted me...

Dog food is a heated topic because it is a PERSONAL choice, like I've said to you numerous times. Just like politics and religion. Also because there aren't enough studies and such... like Michiyo said. I know I for one, have yet to get "pissed off" at any debate or topic in the food forum. But you do come off , to me, as a bit of an...

I've never stated that you support any certain brand of food. I was making a generalization when I said "your". You may be looking for a debate, but to me it doesn't seem that way. You ask a question, then get sarcastic and stuff when someone answers. You sound like you do support Purina and Pedigree with your complete sounding stand that the more natural foods and stuff that others choose to feed, isn't any better than the other stuff. To me certain foods are better. I don't push it on anyone though. I answer things that I have had experience with or have researched. 

Most people come to a forum and ask questions to get answers from regular people. You are consumed with scientific evidence as an answer. For the most part, I don't think that that will happen here... unless someone here gets a HUGE grant to do some in depth studies. What you'll find here are peoples experiences and their knowledge. You have discounted the studies and sites that we (generalization) have provided.

I'm sorry if I am coming across as rude, I really don't mean to, but I am answering as bluntly and honestly as I can.


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> The veggies for cancer is because veggies are full of vitamins and anti-oxidants that may slow cancer growth and the oranges for vitamin C.


These are statements based on actual studies, conducted (and repeated) by professionals, and published in peer-reviewed journals. The correlation between people who eat a diet rich in varied proteins, green vegetables, and high in certain vitamins and a lower rate of cancer is well-studied, and well-documented.



> Money isn't an issue for me.


Congratulations  But for a poor graduate student like myself, things are a bit tighter.



> The question is how extensively dog food brand versus health been researched? How many labs were designed to test this and to find no difference?


I think that's more or less what I've been asking since I've been here. What I get are people linking me to websites containing biased information, and anecdotal evidence of one kind or another.



> I have, however, seen research done on dog dieting (overweight dogs) and the kind of food fed such as high carb, high protein, high fat, etc.
> The results showed that dogs fed high protein foods lost weight much quicker and retained more lean muscle than those fed a high carb diet. So food does make a difference if you ask me.


Humans use the same method for losing weight quickly---high protein, low carbs. The question is, is this a healthy way to lose weight? Or, if I am a generally healthy person, should I eat the same diet?



Wynpyp said:


> You are consumed with scientific evidence as an answer.


Is this a bad thing?


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

BenTheMan said:


> Humans use the same method for losing weight quickly---high protein, low carbs. The question is, is this a healthy way to lose weight? Or, if I am a generally healthy person, should I eat the same diet?


Well it depends, did you eat mostly meat 1000 years ago?


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

> Humans use the same method for losing weight quickly---high protein, low carbs. The question is, is this a healthy way to lose weight? Or, if I am a generally healthy person, should I eat the same diet?


Actually, yes and in conjunction with a healthy lifestyle. People generally eat WAY too many carbs. You shouldn't avoid them all together but you should moderate your intake.



> Is this a bad thing?


No, not necessarily. For most things a scientific answer would be totally there. For dog food, not so much. There really hasn't been any in depth, long term studies. We do the best we can with what we have. I look at dog food like I look at the food that I eat and what I feed to my children. I don't wanna pump my kids full of chemical, so why would I do that to my dog?


----------



## Kina_A (Jun 8, 2009)

BenTheMan said:


> Humans use the same method for losing weight quickly---high protein, low carbs. The question is, is this a healthy way to lose weight? Or, if I am a generally healthy person, should I eat the same?


Yes you should.

Like Wynpyp stated humanes watch thier carb intake and should eat complex carbs instead of simple carbs.

Do you need someone to explain to you the difference between the two?


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

Wynpyp said:


> Actually, yes and in conjunction with a healthy lifestyle. People generally eat WAY too many carbs. You shouldn't avoid them all together but you should moderate your intake.





Kina_A said:


> Yes you should.


Sorry, I will try to make my points more explicitly in the future:

Just because someone is losing weight on a specific diet, does that mean that that diet is necessarily healthy?



Wynpyp said:


> There really hasn't been any in depth, long term studies. We do the best we can with what we have. I look at dog food like I look at the food that I eat and what I feed to my children. I don't wanna pump my kids full of chemical, so why would I do that to my dog?


There's two different issues here. To the first, I agree---I have yet to find any in depth studies on dog food. To the second, you're making an association of chemicals = bad, which is not necessarily the case. Either way ``chemicals'' has a broad definition, and it's not clear to me which ``chemicals'' are good and which are bad. For example, Vitamin C is a chemical.


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

BenTheMan said:


> Sorry, I will try to make my points more explicitly in the future:
> 
> Just because someone is losing weight on a specific diet, does that mean that that diet is necessarily healthy?


It depends on the type of diet. 




BenTheMan said:


> There's two different issues here. To the first, I agree---I have yet to find any in depth studies on dog food. To the second, you're making an association of chemicals = bad, which is not necessarily the case. Either way ``chemicals'' has a broad definition, and it's not clear to me which ``chemicals'' are good and which are bad. For example, Vitamin C is a chemical.


I guess I did speak broadly. I meant man-made chemicals. Vitamin C is a naturally occuring chemical. I would not recommend to anyone to live on it though... you'd be camped out in a bathroom if I did! Water, although not a chemical, is also something that we NEED but there is even a limit on water. It's hard to say what a persons limit would be. There is a way to figure it out though. You can actually DIE from drinking to much water... water overdose.


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

Wynpyp said:


> It depends on the type of diet.


So, you agree that the fact that a person, or a dog, loses weight on a specific diet is not necessarily an indicator of a healthy diet?



> I guess I did speak broadly. I meant man-made chemicals. Vitamin C is a naturally occuring chemical.


Hemlock is a naturally occurring chemical. So is arsenic. Five of the seven most toxic substances known to man are naturally occurring.

I guess I don't buy the assertion that ``man-made = bad'' and/or ``natural = good''. There's lots of man-made chemicals that we're happy to put into our bodies everyday. Aleve and Ibuprofen, any pills used for allergies, toothpaste, vinegar, most cosmetics, medications which let you have sex after Nature says otherwise ... all contain ingredients that are man-made and not naturally occurring. (The one exception is vinegar---I couldn't think of any places that vinegar occurs naturally, and a cursory search in google confirmed this. I stand to be corrected, of course.)

At the end of the day, your body is just one big chemical reaction. You put some stuff in, and certain things happen. While there are some aspects of bio-chemistry which we haven't studied or that we don't have a clue about, most aspects of the field are pretty well covered.



> Water, although not a chemical...


Technically, water IS a chemical.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

BenTheMan, since you say that there is no evidence over healthier dog food or use of chemicals, may I ask how you pick your dog's food then?

How do you decide on a brand to feed if the ingredients, the chemicals used, the corn/by-products/soy labels don't really matter to you since you say there isn't scientific benefits?


----------



## Kina_A (Jun 8, 2009)

BenTheMan said:


> So, you agree that the fact that a person, or a dog, loses weight on a specific diet is not necessarily an indicator of a healthy diet?


You didn't ask which diet they were refering to. 

And yes I will agree that some diet that some people loose weight on are not necessarily healthy.


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

It totally depends on the type of diet. Some diets, no, you cannot say they are necessarily healthly to live on long term. Like the cabbage soup diet for examle. Great way to lose weight fast but NOT meant for people to live off of and not overly healthy. Do you mean a diet as in a quick weight loss or long term diet?

Yes a lot of natural substances are bad for you as well as the man made ones. I guess I should have clarified my post/opinion more. I meant ones that *I* think are bad, be it man made or naturally occuring. I'm not going to give my kids ETQ and I won't give it to my dog. 

Yes, water is a chemical... oops.


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> BenTheMan, since you say that there is no evidence over healthier dog food or use of chemicals, may I ask how you pick your dog's food then?
> 
> How do you decide on a brand to feed if the ingredients, the chemicals used, the corn/by-products/soy labels don't really matter to you since you say there isn't scientific benefits?


I don't know if there's evidence one way or the other, that's what I've been asking since I came here. I've quoted one source, a Ph.D. in Clinical Nutrition at Cornell University, who said as much. Excepting that one source, I've not been able to find any other (unbiased) sources on the internet.

Either way, at the risk of giving the morons who think I work for some dog food company more fodder:

For kibble, I started feeding my dog Science Diet (which is what I fed my last dog) and she did pretty well on that. She ate it and seemed to like it, and her poop was solid but not hard.

I am currently feeding her some slightly more expensive food called Orijen, based on a recommendation from this comparison site. As it stands, her poop got much softer (like soft serve ice cream), which I'm not sure is a good thing. She doesn't seem to like it as much, either, so it seems like I paid more for a fancy bag and fancy ingredients.

Between the two foods, I haven't noticed any difference in her energy levels, the clarity of her eyes, or the shininess of her coat. As to the latter, I feed her fish oil with her breakfast, which helped my last dog's shedding issues. (He had short hair, but shed a lot.) This may be why I haven't noticed a difference in her coat between the two foods, as I think the Orijen contains fish oil.

For wet food, I feed her some canned food that's made in Texas (Before Grain, maybe?), and is made of buffalo. (I also feed her the chicken and beef flavors.) It comes in a black can, and costs like $2, which she eats over about 5 days. I chose it because 1.) it contains buffalo, which is awesome; 2.) it's made in Texas, which is awesome; and 3.) the can is cool.


----------



## Kina_A (Jun 8, 2009)

BenTheMan said:


> Either way, at the risk of giving the morons who think I work for some dog food company more fodder:


You know BenTheMan, thoughout all the debates that people have had with you concerning dog food, not once did anyone ever call you names. And here you are calling them names!!

Grow up!


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

BenTheMan said:


> I am currently feeding her some slightly more expensive food called Orijen, based on a recommendation from this comparison site. As it stands, her poop got much softer (like soft serve ice cream), which I'm not sure is a good thing. She doesn't seem to like it as much, either, so it seems like I paid more for a fancy bag and fancy ingredients.


Perhaps your dog is not adjusted to Orijen or finds Orijen too rich. I've known a few dogs that can't eat Orijen or other high protein dog foods. How long have you switched for? Soft poop is generally not a great sign, it usually means either you are feeding too much (happens a lot with Orijen, EVO, other high protein foods) or your dog just finds that food too rich. Perhaps you can try feeding 25% less and see if she still has soft poop?

My dog is on Orijen as well and she doesn't have soft poop, on the contrary, she has small solid poops. Her poop decreased by half from when she was on Innova. And her fur has gotten shinier and she has much less eye goop than when she was on Innova. Even people that did not know that I changed dog foods have told me that her fur looks softer and shinier now. Also she was underweight on Innova because she would hardly eat it and she likes Orijen a lot more that she will eat everyday and she is no longer underweight. 

But you still didn't really answer my question. You told me the brands you picked and the 2nd being recommended from the website you provided but do you still search for recommendations when you pick dog food? Or you just judge yourself? And what criteria do you use to judge what to feed your dog?

By the way, I had already previously provided you with a link that had studies done to prove that melamine and cyranuric acid (chemicals are not necessarily bad as you put it) cause renal failure in dogs and cats. So I don't think there isn't any scientific evidence against chemicals' affects on dogs.


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

BenTheMan said:


> Either way, at the risk of giving the morons who think I work for some dog food company more fodder:


Wow... I think this has effectively put an end to my debating with you.


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> How long have you switched for? Soft poop is generally not a great sign, it usually means either you are feeding too much (happens a lot with Orijen, EVO, other high protein foods) or your dog just finds that food too rich. Perhaps you can try feeding 25% less and see if she still has soft poop?


She's been eating it for a few weeks. The bag recommends I feed her two cups of food a day, but she doesn't eat that much.



> But you still didn't really answer my question. You told me the brands you picked and the 2nd being recommended from the website you provided but do you still search for recommendations when you pick dog food? Or you just judge yourself? And what criteria do you use to judge what to feed your dog?


I thought I told you how I picked the foods---Science Diet was a vet reccomendation. Orijen was based on the recommendation of the website I linked to---they collected reviews across all of the internet, and made a judgement based on that (that doesn't mean the recommendation is unbiased, it's just an average across all biases). The wet food I picked because I like the idea of feeding my dog buffalo.

I don't think I'll buy another bag of Orijen, based on the fact that it doesn't seem to agree with the dog. The same company which makes the canned food also makes a kibble, so if it's not too expensive that'll probably be the next dry food I try.



> By the way, I had already previously provided you with a link that had studies done to prove that melamine and cyranuric acid (chemicals are not necessarily bad as you put it) cause renal failure in dogs and cats. So I don't think there isn't any scientific evidence against chemicals' affects on dogs.


That's true. You linked me to a huge list of papers, which I haven't looked at yet. I appreciate that, and will take a look at it at some point before I buy the next bag of dog food.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Ben, no one on here is going to be able to give you the answers you are looking for. Such studies just don't seem to exist. Consult with a nutritionist. We are all here to give our personal opinions on what dog foods we believe are the best, and share what has worked with our own dogs.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

BenTheMan said:


> I don't think I'll buy another bag of Orijen, based on the fact that it doesn't seem to agree with the dog. The same company which makes the canned food also makes a kibble, so if it's not too expensive that'll probably be the next dry food I try.


Now THAT is very wise of you! You are beginning to realize you need to go with what works best for you & your dog, just like most of us do - YAY!


----------



## BobSD (Feb 1, 2008)

Do any of you subscribe to Petsumer Report? If so are you able to e-mail them a question if one should come up?


----------

