Golden Retriever Dog Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
It's just an illusion ...
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/showthread.php?t=72106&page=3

Continued ...

... You perpetuate the myths that allow boutique dog food manufacturers to charge high prices for foods which may not only lack proven benefits but may actually be inferior in the nutrition they provide. All they have to do is comply with a small handful of prejudices and they can charge well-meaning people a lot more... .

A pet food formula that does not contain enough natural occuring vitamin K ( derived from veggies rich in vit. K ) will be supplemented by the synthetic chemical Menadione Sodium Bisulfate ( vitamin K3 ), a cheaper $ version.
Same for natural preservatives vs cheaper $ version chemical preservatives.

Doesn't take a scientist to conclude it will reflect in the price of the food.

Banned for human consumption ... but ok for pets ? ... :uhoh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,755 Posts
I will not feed my dogs anything that is banned for human consumption. I just don't see a point, when there are several other options that fit in with what I'm comfortable feeding them.
 

·
...
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
MSB toxicity (in humans or animals) is extremely rare, and only in prolonged megadoses.

Just because chocolate is toxic to dogs, I'm not going to stop eating it.
 

·
Grumpy Old Man
Joined
·
4,616 Posts
MSB toxicity (in humans or animals) is extremely rare, and only in prolonged megadoses.
The last time a bio-chemist friend of mine looked at this he said that in the amounts used in pet foods, an average sized golden would have to retain all of the MSB (not going to happen) in the food and eat it daily for something like 150 years to consume enough of it to begin to have a chance at generating a toxic response.

Since my dog doesn't have a prayer of living 150 years, I have to believe that the benefits of synthetic vitamin K3 far outway the risks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,129 Posts
I don't blame anyone for choosing to avoid it. Personally I don't think its harmful in the small miniscule amounts used. I think its more stable in storage...which is why it is used.

The bad effects were exhibited when the stuff was injected in high doses.....That is a lot different then the little bit put in dog food.

That said...I don't think its ridiculous to want to avoid it.

I got info below from http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminK/.

Toxicity
Although allergic reaction is possible, there is no known toxicity associated with high doses of the phylloquinone (vitamin K1) or menaquinone (vitamin K2) forms of vitamin K (22). The same is not true for synthetic menadione (vitamin K3) and its derivatives. Menadione can interfere with the function of glutathione, one of the body's natural antioxidants, resulting in oxidative damage to cell membranes. Menadione given by injection has induced liver toxicity, jaundice, and hemolytic anemia (due to the rupture of red blood cells) in infants; therefore, menadione is no longer used for treatment of vitamin K deficiency (6, 8).

 

·
Inactive
Joined
·
11,326 Posts
tippykayak,

With all due respect ... how is it that YOU can go ON and ON and ON preaching about what you feed but others cannot share their views or post links they've drawn their conclusions from, without being referred to as a threat to mankind & dogkind ?


DONE :) http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/showthread.php?p=1050073#post1050073
I find it amusing that you think because you started a sentence with "with all due respect" that you can go on to be quite insulting.

I don't go on and on about what my dogs eat, and I don't generally recommend Eukanuba PP for most dogs, since it's very calorie-dense and rich.

I do find what you guys sometimes say about food to be very destructive, and you don't realize how upset and guilty you make people feel, and you push people toward dog foods that are more expensive and may not actually be better.

By all means, continue to share your views and post your links. Just also be aware that some of us are going to actually read those links and draw conclusions that are a little more complex and a lot less scary.
 

·
Inactive
Joined
·
11,326 Posts
A pet food formula that does not contain enough natural occuring vitamin K ( derived from veggies rich in vit. K ) will be supplemented by the synthetic chemical Menadione Sodium Bisulfate ( vitamin K3 ), a cheaper $ version.
Same for natural preservatives vs cheaper $ version chemical preservatives.
Doesn't take a scientist to conclude it will reflect in the price of the food.
Banned for human consumption ... but ok for pets ? ... :uhoh:
It's banned as a supplement, since it's toxic in high doses, just like Vitamin A and a host of other vitamins. You are using such false logic here.

If MSB is necessary in dog foods that don't contain those healthy veggies, how do the vegetable-free and grain-free raw diets work?
 

·
RIP Sweet Skyler
Joined
·
9,306 Posts
I do find what you guys sometimes say about food to be very destructive, and you don't realize how upset and guilty you make people feel, and you push people toward dog foods that are more expensive and may not actually be better.

By all means, continue to share your views and post your links. Just also be aware that some of us are going to actually read those links and draw conclusions that are a little more complex and a lot less scary.
You Guys?????
What a condensending statement. You seem to appreciate scientific approach but then make a statement like it "may not be better" and how people who think different then you about pet food are destructive.

And then say that the conclusions you draw are more complex and supposedly more accurate? Please!!

I have never once touted one food over another but have only offered my personal experience with what I feed. I choose to feed a kiddle that I believe is best for my pack. By your definitions I am in the "boutique" food group simply because I choose a kibble that is made differently then what your deem necessary. Yet no defining criteria has been set for what is "boutique" vs "mainstream". If "boutique" means a smaller manufacturing process with more emphasis on natural product then yes, I guess I am. I choose to feed grain free but have never said anyone else should - so how does that make me destructive? In actuality some of the research and links that have provided over the course of time was beneficial in my choosing what food I do use.

In the case of k3 it simply means I choose not to feed my dog something that has been deemed harmful. Percentages, amounts needed for toxic reaction, length of time needed for adverse reaction, etc, etc still doesn't take away from the fact it could be harmful. If so, why wouldn't you simply buy a kibble that doesn't have it and add fresh veggies occassionaly? I certainly don't think that is a "boutique" mindset.
 

·
Inactive
Joined
·
11,326 Posts
You Guys?????
What a condensending statement. You seem to appreciate scientific approach but then make a statement like it "may not be better" and how people who think different then you about pet food are destructive.

And then say that the conclusions you draw are more complex and supposedly more accurate? Please!!
First of all, since you hadn't entered the debate yet, my comment clearly wasn't about you. It was about the comments from the two previous posters that are, in my opinion, quite counter-productive. If you look at the way I've been spoken to in this thread and in the one it shot off from, I hardly think you can blame me for the way the tone took an unpleasant turn. I was called a flat-earther and then accused of "preaching" "ON and ON and ON" about a food I mentioned exactly once in the previous thread and never said anybody else should feed.

The only preaching I've done is against selecting dog foods by misplaced fear and a poor scientific process, because I believe it has negative consequences for owners and dogs.

I have never once touted one food over another but have only offered my personal experience with what I feed. I choose to feed a kiddle that I believe is best for my pack. By your definitions I am in the "boutique" food group simply because I choose a kibble that is made differently then what your deem necessary. Yet no defining criteria has been set for what is "boutique" vs "mainstream". If "boutique" means a smaller manufacturing process with more emphasis on natural product then yes, I guess I am. I choose to feed grain free but have never said anyone else should - so how does that make me destructive? In actuality some of the research and links that have provided over the course of time was beneficial in my choosing what food I do use.
I never said all boutique foods were bad. I just don't think they're necessarily superior by virtue of being boutique foods or by avoiding ingredients that get a bad rap on dog food websites. I do believe that the rumors going around on the internet have allowed SOME manufacturers to charge more for kibble that isn't necessarily better and MAY be worse. I made no comments about any specific brand or feeding regimen.

I do know that if I had no morals and wanted to charge $2/lb for dog food, the first thing I'd do is read those websites, figure out how to get five stars, and go from there. I'd proudly tout my food as ethoxyquin and MSB free (even if it used fish meal); I'd make sure the first three ingredients were named meat sources; I'd proclaim all my food was corn-free; I'd offer a grain-free variety; and I'd make the GA number for protein very high. I'd also put pictures of wolves on the bag and name it something that involved nature, wildness, words for meat, and something sciencey. Like "wild mountain canine" or something.

Does that mean all such food are bad? Of course not. Does it mean all such foods are superior to Purina ProPlan, IAMS, or other, more traditional foods? Of course not.

I agree that smaller manufacturing processes are generally better, and more "natural" is probably better, but it's a word that has no legal definition on a dog food bag, and it makes for great marketing.

In the case of k3 it simply means I choose not to feed my dog something that has been deemed harmful. Percentages, amounts needed for toxic reaction, length of time needed for adverse reaction, etc, etc still doesn't take away from the fact it could be harmful. If so, why wouldn't you simply buy a kibble that doesn't have it and add fresh veggies occassionaly? I certainly don't think that is a "boutique" mindset.
I have no problem with people who avoid MSB. Hooray. Go for it. There's no way you're hurting your dog by keeping synthetic K3 out of his diet. It's not in the food I feed my dogs either. My problem is when people go online and announce to others that they're hurting their dogs with a toxic substance. It's unfair, unintentionally cruel, counterproductive, and not evidence-based.

When you say it "has been deemed" harmful, even the language you chose shows how thin the logic is. By whom? Dog food websites. The FDA does not consider it harmful, and has banned it in human supplements because of the risk of overdose, not because it's harmful in smaller quantities. There is no evidence that it can't play a useful role in small quantities, and no evidence whatsoever that the fact that it's toxic in massive quantities means it's even the tiniest bit harmful or cumulative as a micronutrient.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
The last time a bio-chemist friend of mine looked at this he said that in the amounts used in pet foods, an average sized golden would have to retain all of the MSB (not going to happen) in the food and eat it daily for something like 150 years to consume enough of it to begin to have a chance at generating a toxic response.

Since my dog doesn't have a prayer of living 150 years, I have to believe that the benefits of synthetic vitamin K3 far outway the risks.
There are concerns in the scientific community about menadione that aren't specifically about true "toxic" responses. There are questions about long term changes to DNA that daily intake of K3 may have. Sometimes it's the cumulative effect of even smaller amounts over time of a specific substance that may also be damaging.
 

·
Inactive
Joined
·
11,326 Posts
There are concerns in the scientific community about menadione that aren't specifically about true "toxic" responses. There are questions about long term changes to DNA that daily intake of K3 may have. Sometimes it's the cumulative effect of even smaller amounts over time of a specific substance that may also be damaging.
It breaks DNA strands. There's no evidence is causes changes in base pairs, right?

There's somewhat extensive literature on cumulative effects that hasn't shown any connection to health problems.
 

·
...
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
There are concerns in the scientific community about menadione that aren't specifically about true "toxic" responses. There are questions about long term changes to DNA that daily intake of K3 may have. Sometimes it's the cumulative effect of even smaller amounts over time of a specific substance that may also be damaging.

How long, then, before I see these DNA changes in my dogs who have been fed this stuff for years and years and years? I assume that these changes in the DNA will affect future generations, and we will start seeing some sort of mutations? Any clue what those might be? 3 eyes? 2 tails?
Facetiousness aside, I really am curious, and would love to see the source for this information.
 

·
Inactive
Joined
·
11,326 Posts
How long, then, before I see these DNA changes in my dogs who have been fed this stuff for years and years and years? I assume that these changes in the DNA will affect future generations, and we will start seeing some sort of mutations? Any clue what those might be? 3 eyes? 2 tails?
Facetiousness aside, I really am curious, and would love to see the source for this information.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6203538

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T38-41C2SGS-3&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F15%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1185779602&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bba0fd4be39f8cdfeef4e396f8407493

http://www.jbc.org/content/267/4/2474.abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1741774

It's a pretty common substance in biomedical studies of DNA scission, but I don't think it causes DNA changes per se, at least in the way that term is commonly used. It does cause DNA damage when it's injected into cells, but I think the term "DNA damage" makes people think of aging and cancer when that's a bit misleading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
First of all, since you hadn't entered the debate yet, my comment clearly wasn't about you. It was about the comments from the two previous posters that are, in my opinion, quite counter-productive. If you look at the way I've been spoken to in this thread and in the one it shot off from, I hardly think you can blame me for the way the tone took an unpleasant turn. I was called a flat-earther and then accused of "preaching" "ON and ON and ON" about a food I mentioned exactly once in the previous thread and never said anybody else should feed.

The only preaching I've done is against selecting dog foods by misplaced fear and a poor scientific process, because I believe it has negative consequences for owners and dogs.



I never said all boutique foods were bad. I just don't think they're necessarily superior by virtue of being boutique foods or by avoiding ingredients that get a bad rap on dog food websites. I do believe that the rumors going around on the internet have allowed SOME manufacturers to charge more for kibble that isn't necessarily better and MAY be worse. I made no comments about any specific brand or feeding regimen.

I do know that if I had no morals and wanted to charge $2/lb for dog food, the first thing I'd do is read those websites, figure out how to get five stars, and go from there. I'd proudly tout my food as ethoxyquin and MSB free (even if it used fish meal); I'd make sure the first three ingredients were named meat sources; I'd proclaim all my food was corn-free; I'd offer a grain-free variety; and I'd make the GA number for protein very high. I'd also put pictures of wolves on the bag and name it something that involved nature, wildness, words for meat, and something sciencey. Like "wild mountain canine" or something.

Does that mean all such food are bad? Of course not. Does it mean all such foods are superior to Purina ProPlan, IAMS, or other, more traditional foods? Of course not.

I agree that smaller manufacturing processes are generally better, and more "natural" is probably better, but it's a word that has no legal definition on a dog food bag, and it makes for great marketing.



I have no problem with people who avoid MSB. Hooray. Go for it. There's no way you're hurting your dog by keeping synthetic K3 out of his diet. It's not in the food I feed my dogs either. My problem is when people go online and announce to others that they're hurting their dogs with a toxic substance. It's unfair, unintentionally cruel, counterproductive, and not evidence-based.

When you say it "has been deemed" harmful, even the language you chose shows how thin the logic is. By whom? Dog food websites. The FDA does not consider it harmful, and has banned it in human supplements because of the risk of overdose, not because it's harmful in smaller quantities. There is no evidence that it can't play a useful role in small quantities, and no evidence whatsoever that the fact that it's toxic in massive quantities means it's even the tiniest bit harmful or cumulative as a micronutrient.
I always find it odd when I see a Purina product and IAMS being referenced as the same. Yes, they can both easily be obtained at a big box store or a grocery store for a reasonable price. However, IAMS is a product that does not contain menadione or unnamed animal fat (ingredients that some people choose to avoid) and does include 2 named meat sources in the first 4 listed ingredients. The same is not true for Purina Pro Plan. Not that that necessarily matters to everyone, but it does seem odd to see the two companies so often lumped together as a contrast to other foods.

Also, a lot of food discussion is really about becoming informed consumers and then making choices that match with one's personal criteria.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
It breaks DNA strands. There's no evidence is causes changes in base pairs, right?

There's somewhat extensive literature on cumulative effects that hasn't shown any connection to health problems.
It is ongoing research. No one study wraps up and puts to rest all concerns. That's not typically how scientific research plays out as much as we would all like quick nicely-tied up answers to everything.
 

·
Inactive
Joined
·
11,326 Posts
It is ongoing research. No one study wraps up and puts to rest all concerns. That's not typically how scientific research plays out as much as we would all like quick nicely-tied up answers to everything.
Obviously not, but there's been a huge amount of research and no evidence of changes to base pairs, right? Just scission? You keep using terms that are very confusing.

You seem to be under the impression that you have a far, far stronger background in science than I have, which is odd, since you have no idea what my science background is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
The bigger picture can really get lost sometimes when it becomes the details of many very specific studies that become the total focus.

When there is a lot of attention and investigation about a specific substance by many diverse and reputable arms of the scientific community, some consumers consider it enough of a red flag to avoid the substance at least until more definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Others choose to approach the issue from the opposite end. They have a comfort level in choosing to use the substance until they see evidence that to them definitively indicates that using the substance results in specific negatives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
Obviously not, but there's been a huge amount of research and no evidence of changes to base pairs, right? Just scission? You keep using terms that are very confusing.

You seem to be under the impression that you have a far, far stronger background in science than I have, which is odd, since you have no idea what my science background is.
Please see my post #18. It's not about any of us laying claim to any specific levels of scientific expertise.

I think a lot of dog owners are interested in what information they can access, be it from books, magazine or newspaper articles, internet sources, other dog owners, etc. Then, we all have to do the best we can with forming our own conclusions based at that specific point in time. Not everyone comes away with identical insight. It's all about being as informed and educated of consumers as we can attempt to be.
 

·
Inactive
Joined
·
11,326 Posts
The bigger picture can really get lost sometimes when it becomes the details of many very specific studies that become the total focus.

When there is a lot of attention and investigation about a specific substance by many diverse and reputable arms of the scientific community, some consumers consider it enough of a red flag to avoid the substance at least until more definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Others choose to approach the issue from the opposite end. They have a comfort level in choosing to use the substance until they see evidence that to them definitively indicates that using the substance results in specific negatives.
I really don't agree with your assessment. This isn't a "wary until it's proven safe" issue. This is an issue of some people prioritizing some additives while ignoring others, and of raising alarms about them where there is no real reason to do so.

I mean, really look at what got said here. This substance was accused of causing cancer, mutation, and toxic effects. Some of you said, "I prefer to avoid it," but you ALSO made it sound really, really scary, and despite "a lot of attention and investigation," those claims are simply unsubstantiated.

You guys didn't just say "there are questions." You linked the substance to all kinds of dangerous effects it doesn't actually have. That's simply not right, and it has unintended negative consequences.

The same thing gets done about corn, ethoxyquin, meat byproducts, and all of the other bugaboos that dog food websites want to whip us up about.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top