Tuesday, 28 May 2019

Ethoxyquin, The Slimy Inside Story

Ethoxyquin used in fish feed is added to prevent the feed blowing up in transit, yes, explosions. It is also used to keep fats from going rancid. And there has been an on-going 'fight' for the past decade to get it out of food for humans, but it has been making our pets sick as it is used in pet food. See the Gloria Dodd letter at the bottom, who was a vet. Read it to see how many diseases are caused. And even for fish feed, which ends up in humans, the extension for getting rid of it is to 2020. Don't hold your breath that it will be taken out of our food stream, as the fish farm industry doesn't want that to happen.

Also see the Morgenbladet website: https://morgenbladet.no/aktuelt/2018/04/det-vi-ikke-vet-om-laksen.

"What we do not know about the salmon

Experts in double roles, disturbing animal studies and a researcher who stopped in the middle of an attempt. Here is the story of ethoxyquin, a synthetic substance in farmed salmon, which Norway defends, but the EU will ban."

Here is a Mercola article:  https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/04/30/salmon-fish-farming.aspx.

"Overall, farmed salmon is five times more toxic than any other food product tested. In animal feeding studies, mice fed farmed salmon grew obese, with thick layers of fat around their internal organs. They also developed diabetes."

And: "The nutritional content is also wildly abnormal. Wild salmon contains about 5 to 7 percent fat, whereas the farmed variety can contain anywhere from 14.5 to 34 percent.

Many toxins accumulate most readily in fat, which means even when raised in similarly contaminated conditions, farmed salmon will contain far more toxins than wild.

Shockingly, research reveals that the most significant source of toxic exposure is not actually the pesticides or the antibiotics, but the dry pellet feed! Pollutants found in the fish feed include dioxins, PCBs, and a number of different drugs and chemicals."

The reason is that the fish used for feed are fatty fish, and thus concentrate things like dioxins, and ethoxyquin in the fat, which is then used for fish feed as Baltic states told their people not to eat the fatty fish.

And: "To the protein powder, they add an “antioxidant” called ethoxyquin. According to the filmmaker, this is one of the best kept secrets of the fish food industry. Ethoxyquin was developed by Monsanto in the 1950s — as a pesticide. Its use is strictly regulated, so why is it being added to fish pellets?"

And: " ...a Swiss anti-fraud laboratory was surprised to find extremely high levels of ethoxyquin in farmed fish — some 10 to 20 times higher than the 50 mcg per kilo allowed in food in the European Union — and that discovery began to unravel the secret. Ethoxyquin was designed for use on fruits and vegetables, but the fish feed industry discovered another novel use for it — they add it to the feed to prevent the fats from oxidizing and going rancid.

However, the fish feed manufacturers never informed health authorities of their use of the chemical. As a result, the EU strictly regulates ethoxyquin levels in fruits, vegetables, and meat — there are even standards for kangaroos and reptiles — but not for the fish people consume. What’s more, the effects of this chemical on human health have never been established."

And: here is a Bill Bryden link to ethoxyquin:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/nlaquaculture/permalink/2406848442872334/.

"Ethoxyquin is required to be added to fish-meal in order to prevent it from exploding during sea transport and storage. The European Union has set an combined upper limit for ethoxyquin and other antioxidants (BHA and BHT) of 150 mg per kg of feed. Data obtained from fish-feed and feed-ingredient monitoring programmes have not revealed any instances of this limit being exceeded in Norwegian feed." 

As above, the other reason for putting 'E' in fish feed is to keep the oils from going rancid. It was first developed as - you won't believe this - a pesticide.

From:  https://nifes.hi.no/en/ethoxyquin-in-fish-feed/.

Ethoxyquin does not belong in your food: https://www.nutraceuticalbusinessreview.com/technical/article_page/Ethoxyquin_does_not_belong_in_your_food/99579.

 And: https://www.allaboutfeed.net/Feed-Additives/Partner/2017/10/Ethoxyquin-use-in-animal-feed-suspended-198110E/. Says, of the EU decision to suspend EQ:

"Antioxidant manufacturers and suppliers can no longer market formulations for animal feed which contain ethoxyquin, as of 28th September 2017. This action represents the first step in the suspension of ethoxyquin use in animal feeds.
Feed producers can still use existing stocks of ethoxyquin during the transitional period of a further three months. By the end of 2017, the second step of this regulation* will enter into force, and all companies involved in animal feed nutrition will have to discontinue the use of this long-standing antioxidant ingredient."

Yes, but remember that 2020 date.

And, from 2013:  https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijfs/2013/585931/.

"Ethoxyquin (EQ, 6-ethoxy-1,2-dihydro-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline) is widely used in animal feed in order to protect it against lipid peroxidation. EQ cannot be used in any food for human consumption (except spices, e.g., chili), but it can pass from feed to farmed fish, poultry, and eggs, so human beings can be exposed to this antioxidant. The manufacturer Monsanto Company (USA) performed a series of tests on ethoxyquin which showed its safety. Nevertheless, some harmful effects in animals and people occupationally exposed to it were observed in 1980’s which resulted in the new studies undertaken to reevaluate its toxicity. Here, we present the characteristics of the compound and results of the research, concerning, for example, products of its metabolism and oxidation or searching for new antioxidants on the EQ backbone."

Suspension alarms fish farmers: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/1327790/eu-ethoxyquin-suspension-alarms-fish-feed-producers.

And: https://www.bing.com/search?q=ethoxyquin+fda&FORM=QSRE8.

Says: Ethoxyquin was developed 35 years ago as a rubber stabilizer, has been used as a chemical preservative and is regulated by the FDA as a pesticide.

And:  Ethoxyquin is a chemical preservative – and possible carcinogenic – regulated by the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) as a pesticide.

 Food additive amounts: https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Products/AnimalFoodFeeds/IngredientsAdditives/ucm541035.htm.

And another that mentions E keeps feed from exploding: https://www.nutraceuticalbusinessreview.com/technical/article_page/Ethoxyquin_does_not_belong_in_your_food/99579.   And has a good list of the standards in different counttries, and a list of references at the end.

And even Wikipedia has an article on 'E': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethoxyquin. It was invented by Monsanto in the 1950s, as a pesticide. It has been used to keep fats from going rancid in pet food, aquaculture feed and so on. It should not be found in human food, like, wait for it, farmed fish.

Here is an article for the general reader, May 2019: https://michaelkummer.com/health/diet/farmed-salmon/.

And here is that excellent letter, 1992, describing pet problems, including cancer and death from eating ethoxyquin over several decades, by Gloria Dodd, who is a retired veterinarian: https://truthaboutpetfood.com/ethoxyquin-carcinogenictoxic-food-preservative-in-pet-foods-a-letter-to-the-fda/. Do go read this one, as the effects on our pets are pretty bad.

Here is a Barentz Group slide presentation on antioxidants, including Ethoxyquin. This is highly scientific and for the specialist:  https://www.fif.is/files/10/Antioxidants-Vitablend-Dvid-Prime.pdf.
It is worth a cruise. 


These are the Siri Vike articles on ISA, not ethoxyquin, another issue fish farms and especially Aquagen didn't like:  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Siri_Vike.

Sunday, 19 May 2019

DFO Does Not Use 'Evidence and Science' That Doesn't Agree with It's Fabricated Story - Updated Jan 28, 2020

Hi Jonathan Wilkinson et al

It is time to stop saying that DFO uses ‘evidence and science.’ When DFO deals with fish farms, it is decidedly not true. DFO uses the story it wants to serve the narrative it has, and ignores science and evidence, or won't test, say for PRV, so it has no evidence against fish farms. Hmm.

Read this post, and the dozen other examples in another post, just below this: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/05/cermaq-lice-peroxide-slice-paramove-50.html.

In my opinion, as bad as this is, the worst case was when DFO and the CFIA conspired to find a lab that would give you/them a ‘no disease response’ for fish farms diseases, and chose the Gary Marty one in BC, after its own, DFO, lab found disease in BC fish farms. After reading all the FOI material culled from your and the other agency, I would call this fraud. Any reasonable person calls it fraud.

DC Reid

This is the post that has almost a dozen cases of DFO not using evidence and/or science: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/02/evidence-and-science-based-decisions-at.html.

This is the post I mention that should be DFO/CFIA fraud: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/09/canadian-food-inspection-agency.html.  Jonathan Wilkinson, I want the Attorney General to investigate your ministry for fraud. And then send me the letter on the case.

Yet, another long case of refusing to use 'evidence and science' is DFO's pulling out of planned research two days before it was set to begin, by refusing Dr. John Volpe a source of Atlantic salmon from BC fish farms. 

Fortunately, Volpe found another source of fish farm salmon, and went on to research the escapes/leakage from BC fish farms, and the presence of Atlantic salmon and progeny, meaning adult fish spawned, fry were produced and both fry and adult were present in many BC rivers in following years, even though DFO maintains it couldn't/can't happen.

Here is one of the posts I did on this subject: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/10/escaped-atlantic-salmon-in-bc-volpe.html. I did several on Volpe's work.

Note that the shocking 'evidence and science' that DFO ignored was that Volpe found adults and progeny in 40 Vancouver Island rivers that his team swam, that had multiple BC salmonid populations, that is 97% of the rivers that he studied. This is shocking, yet DFO claims there is no 'evidence and science': https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/12/atlantic-salmon-in-bc-rivers-bad-news.html. This is just one of the posts I wrote, but it leads to the conclusion that at the lowest 'escape/leakage' rate of .003% (meaning a third of 1 percent) that 153,000 farmed Atlantics escape per crop in BC.

And, Google this for a long list of websites that discuss the Volpe research and escaped Atlantic salmon in BC: https://www.bing.com/search?q=fishfarmnews.blogspot.com+-+John+Volpe+Atlantic+salmon+escape+research&pc=MOZD&form=MOZLBR.

Stop making DFO look foolish, and stop using the 'evidence and science' defense, because DFO does not use science that does not agree with what it wants to do, which is put more fish farms in BC waters, even though the BC population lost patience with you a very long time ago over fish farms. I would add that anywhere in the world where citizens have to live with in-ocean fish farms, they come to hate them, because their elected governments won't take them out and put them on land.

If you like them so much, put them in the Rideau Canal in Ottawa and see how long you like them.


And another case of evidence being evadedhttps://globalnews.ca/video/5305357/documents-indicate-federal-fisheries-officials-cant-control-fish-farms?fbclid=IwAR2uUxPQebS1iP9MNPtAktFZ_5PSpUr7EBjEbsGpiDC7h6Xo4_YSiP1Pkbc. All that fish farms need is a plan for lice. Doesn't matter whether they use it, Jonathan. This one is DFO employees complaining about the DFO non-action to save wild salmon. AM comments.

And, yet another case: read this one for DFO four times refusing to use science and evidence over PRV:  https://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2020/01/the-virus-prv-brings-out-the-worst-in-dfo.html?fbclid=IwAR1RVl5HttXekuttvJChNOwu51SufY3oxLT3uc7hZ_TScKjBL5nyr0siMuE.

Wednesday, 15 May 2019

CERMAQ LICE - Peroxide, SLICE, Paramove 50, Lufenuron, Hydrolicer - Lice Out of Control, Clayoquot Sound, Updated June 12, 2019

DFOs Failure to Use, and Refusal to Acknowledge Lack of, Evidence and Science

Not to mention that fish farms kill wild salmon. See the Clayoquot Sound story below.

We tend to think of an animal acquiring resistance to a chemical as a difficult thing. But it is not. If a lice chemical is applied and kills many lice, the ones that don't get killed just carry on, and that is all that resistance is: the louse doesn't get killed. They live and breed as normal, and all their offspring are 'resistant'. It is that simple - the ones that don't die are resistant. Duhh.

And each female can produce 1,000 eggs, meaning if each salmon in an average farm had only one female louse each, that could mean 1,000 X 600,000 = 600 Million lice. In Clayoquot Sound there are roughly 20 farms, meaning 12 Billion lice in one year. Talk about a Silent Spring, and shake your head. It becomes harder and harder to consider voting Liberal in the next federal election in October 2019.

Go read/scan this document on the chemical nature, problems, uses, and so on of/with Paramove 50, which is a fancy name for peroxide, or H2O2: https://manualzz.com/doc/7565353/interox-%C2%AE-paramove%E2%84%A2-50-section-1--identification-of-the. I am surprised that a company could be allowed to give a trade name to a simple chemical, when they are not doing anything to change it.

This is probably the simplest chemical that could be used, composed of only oxygen and hydrogen and would oxidize things, as in an acidic reaction. But read all the problems:

Here is the toxicity of Paramove 50, Salmosan and AlphaMax to crustaceans: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0044848613005735.

These are the chemical constituents and application doses:  "AlphaMax® is applied at 2 μg L− 1 as deltamethrin, Salmosan is applied at 100 μg L− 1 as azamethiphos and Interox®Paramove™50 is applied at 1200–1800 mg L− 1 as hydrogen peroxide"


Moving on, here is Living Oceans summary of the lice problem in Clayoquot Sound, BC, 2018: https://livingoceans.org/media/releases/lousy-choices-parasitic-lice-out-control-salmon-farms.

A lice load as small as one louse per one fry can be lethal. Hear what the actual loads were:

“Eighteen years after this issue was brought to DFO’s attention there is still no protection for wild salmon,” said Alexandra Morton of Raincoast Research. “Independent researchers in Clayoquot Sound documented 96% of the wild juvenile salmon were infected with an average of over 8 lice per fish.  One of the fish they recovered had 50 lice.  I don’t hold hope that much of this generation of wild salmon survived.”

This is a link to the Living Oceans document, Lousy Choices: https://livingoceans.org/media/reports-publications/lousy-choices-drug-resistant-sea-lice-clayoquot-sound.

Among other things, it shows that DFO and the industry tried to ignore drug resistance, and DFO falsely maintained that no resistance had come from SLICE use. DFO, however, knew all along that drug resistance had been shown as far back as 2013 in Klemtu, and refused to acknowledge it. This is a failure to use 'evidence and science' which DFO's minister, Jonathan Wilkinson claims DFO uses unfailingly. Not so.

Let's say it like it is: DFO's stance was false. It refused to use the science. It refused to reveal the science, and when on the BC minister's committee on fin fish aquaculture, it failed to report resistance, as late as 2018. That is: it maintained a falsehood for five years.

From the Living Oceans report, P 15: The evidence points plainly to one of two things: an attempt to mislead the Ministers Advisory Council [BC Ministry of Agriculture] and concerned members of the public; or an inexcusable failure to communicate critical information about drug resistance to senior officials within the DFO.

And this conclusion from the report: "The sea lice management policy of Fisheries and Oceans Canada has long been criticized for lack of scientific underpinning and a failure to come to grips with impacts on wild juvenile salmon at the most sensitive period in their life cycle. It has brought us to a place where we are left with lousy choices, simply put: increasingly toxic chemicals being dumped directly into the marine environment, or escalating impacts on wild juvenile salmon--or both."

To investigate Lufenuron, Google:  https://www.bing.com/search?q=Lufenuron++-+toxicity&pc=MOZD&form=MOZLBR. It is used in flea chemicals to prevent chitin formation at molting, so the arthropod dies.

This paper on Lufenuron shows negative effects on fish: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653516309286.

These are:

"Fish exhibit behaviors associated with stress when exposed to lufenuron." This would mean they release cortisone and become susceptible to disease, an example would be HSMI.

"Histological analysis showed lamellar aneurysm and blood congestion in fish gills." This would lead to difficulties in breathing and gaining oxygen.

"The ERG analysis was indicative that lufenuron promoted damage in fish retina." This would lead to blindness.

"Lufenuron is used against arthropods, but had a series of toxic effects on fish." Used on lice ,but toxic to fish, such as wild salmon.

They say it should not be released in the ocean: "This concerns about the use and discard of lufenuron, and indicates the requirement of environmental actions to prevent potential contamination of aquatic biota."

Clayoquot Action says this about lufenuron:  "There are human health concerns with use of the drug, which resides in the fat of treated animals. The flesh of treated fish cannot be consumed by humans for 350 days after treatment. This raises questions around how Lufenuron-treated fish will be disposed of in the event of a mass die-off, and in the event of an escape, whether Lufenuron-treated fish might be eaten by a predator which could later be caught for human consumption."

You may read their entire text here: https://clayoquotaction.org/tag/cermaq/. March 23, 2019.

CA says: "Last year [2018] saw salmon lice numbers in Clayoquot spike to levels never before seen in British Columbia, up to 55 lice per farmed fisheighteen times the threshold for treatment set out by Department of Fisheries (DFO). Independent monitoring found wild salmon juveniles had lice counts as high as 50 per fish.

Cermaq is unable to control their salmon lice epidemic in Clayoquot Sound. Their 2018 lice outbreak likely devastated last year’s wild salmon cohort, and their 2019 numbers are already up to 5 times the DFO limit, right at the beginning of the wild salmon out-migration window.

And the emergency request for Lufenuron, that Norway refused to sanction for lice use, had to be obtained in an access to information request - as in not transparent - and DFO, among other things, described Clayoquot lice numbers as “shockingly ugly”. The ATIP document further states “Theoretically [Lufenuron] should prevent lice colonization up to the beginning of the out-migration window, but this will be our first field trial of it in BC”.

Yes, it is alarming that DFO says this so casually.

And Cermaq's hydrolicer did not arrive in 2019, and it can lead to fish deaths on its own.

The point is to tell Minister Wilkinson to take fish farms out of the water and set up on land. This is easily done as my list of on-land fish farms is closing in on almost 300 different farms around the world, yes, 300. There is no need to kill BC salmon and our ocean. It could all be done on land.

See:  https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/05/152-different-on-land-fish-farm-systems.html.

Now, on the issue of evidence and science, here is a previous post that shows DFO doesn't use evidence and science when it suits their purposes, and there are a dozen examples in the post: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/02/evidence-and-science-based-decisions-at.html.

Wake up DFO, Cermaq's lice are out of control once again in 2019https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2019/05/29/cermaq-hit-by-second-successive-annual-lice-outbreak-at-canadian-farms/.

Here is the CBC take on 2019 lice, from my BAD NEWS BITES post:  130. CBC on Cermaq Lice in Clayoquot: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/conservation-groups-sound-alarm-over-another-sea-lice-outbreak-in-clayoquot-sound-1.5151478?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=16383a9768-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_29_09_40&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-16383a9768-166907249&mc_cid=16383a9768&mc_eid=5777c92bcd.

Here are some other posts from my BAD NEWS BITES post on Clayoquot lice:

153. More Clayoquot Sound Lice - 2019, write Jonathan Wilkinson, DFO: https://salmonpeople.ca/salmon-lice-epidemic-action?utm_source=Clayoquot+Action+Supporters&utm_campaign=ab4cfde166-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_30_09_36&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f4a18024b0-ab4cfde166-112597521.

And: "Researchers sampling wild smolts are finding up to a 100% infection rate, with counts as high as 20-50 lice per smolt—this is unprecedented in BC. One to three lice is a fatal load for tiny young salmon without protective scales. This means salmon farms are pushing Clayoquot Sound wild salmon to extinction."

And: "Making matters worse DFO staff report that DFO sea lice regulations are unenforceable. Their hands are tied as sea lice pour out of the farms.  The salmon farming industry helped write these regulations."

152. Sea Lice 'Out of Control' - Clayoqout Sound, BC, 2019: https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/sea-lice-outbreaks-put-b-c-s-salmon-population-at-risk-1.4429185?fbclid=IwAR3vkASJC2sm4-zpMt8_ydc9FBgMhC4K_-SAsZplyufPufEOWjnMMfsEfYU&utm_source=Clayoquot+Action+Supporters&utm_campaign=ab4cfde166-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_30_09_36&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f4a18024b0-ab4cfde166-112597521.

151. Sea Lice Put Wild Salmon at Risk - BC, Clayoquot: https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/sea-lice-outbreaks-put-b-c-s-salmon-population-at-risk-1.4429185?fbclid=IwAR3vkASJC2sm4-zpMt8_ydc9FBgMhC4K_-SAsZplyufPufEOWjnMMfsEfYU&utm_source=Clayoquot+Action+Supporters&utm_campaign=ab4cfde166-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_30_09_36&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f4a18024b0-ab4cfde166-112597521.

188. Cermac Lice, Antibiotics Soar - BC, Clayoquot: https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/cermaq-operations-in-british-columbia-taking-steps-to-tackle-sea-lice/?utm_campaign=newsletter__05_06_2019&utm_source=netflex&utm_medium=email.

 201. Sea Lice Problems - BC, Nootka Sound, etc. Read Alex Morton's take on drug resistance, DFO trying to hide it and fish farm companies quoting the regulations to show they don't have to do anything. You won't be amused: https://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2019/05/sea-lice-control-built-to-fail.html.

 202. BC Lice Story Follows Cermaq to NS - CDN: http://www.southcoasttoday.ca/content/sea-lice-epidemic-haunts-nova-scotias-newest-farmed-salmon-giant?fbclid=IwAR1JrXAuHRyOPesaKwu-0n2MVAYtOgn7aykaNC3B78K1324jBAFBMLRtpCE.


Cermaq's new Hydrolicer has arrived in Tofino:  https://salmonbusiness.com/cermaq-canadas-new-hydrolicer-will-be-in-operation-in-july/.

Oh, and there is a new invention on the street that, without chemicals, expensive well-boats and etc., kills up to 10,000 lice a day, by zapping them with laser beams: https://salmonbusiness.com/lice-lazer-creator-shortlisted-for-this-years-european-inventor-awards/. Cermaq doesn't seem to know this option exists, but should be on land anyway.

Ches Crosbie Response to Mr. Bill Bryden - Aquaculture, May 15, 2019

Hi Ches Crosbie

I have your letter to Mr. Bill Bryden on aquaculture, namely in-ocean fish farms [in NL].

In response to question 2 you state:

“I have been told that there is not any viable land based salmonid aquaculture anywhere
in the world. Such a transition would have to prove to be viable to be successful.”

If you were told this by a government worker, that person needs to be taken off the aquaculture file.

If you were told this by a fish farm company, say Norway’s Grieg, you need to disregard what you have been told, as they are only interested in staying in the ocean, using it as a free, open sewer.

I have a list of nearly 300 on-land fish farm systems, comprising almost 20,000 on-land fish farms around the world: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/05/152-different-on-land-fish-farm-systems.html.

And I have a growing list of positive news stories about on-land fish farms around the world: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/11/good-news-post-links-to-on-land-closed.html.

The future is for on-land fish farms. Just look at Atlantic Sapphire in Florida and its on-land plant that aims to produce several times the output of all of Canada’s fish farm industry, and take Canada’s main market.

DC Reid