Before this topic gets any further out of control, let's get a few facts straight.
The whole ethoxyquin scare started from a single rumour, which became so blown out of proportion via internet chat forums that it eventually turned into another urban myth. The only reason that this preservative ever came into question, was due to a study performed on rats back in 1987 where the dose level of 5,000 ppm ethoxyquin, which is FAR higher than approved levels in pet food, suggested a carcinogenic potential. Ethoxyquin has since been blamed for a myriad of problems, none of which have ever been proven.
Considering the outcry over this preservative by dog owners worldwide, one would think that by now there would be a plethora of data/studies that actually proved that this preservative caused at least some type of long-term health issue in pets. There is not a
single documented case where ethoxyquin used at approved levels has been found to cause any type of long term negative health condition in a dog, cat, fish, or otherwise. One would think that with all of the hysterical anti-ethoxyquin crusades that have taken place over the past 20 yrs or so that at least one non-biased study would be able to prove that this substance can cause serious long term health issues in pets, even when used at appropriate or approved levels. Yet to date, there is not a
single shred of scientific evidence that supports such a view.
Please keep in mind that almost everything and anything can become toxic at high enough levels, including fat-soluble vitamins. No nutritionist would recommend completely eliminating vitamin A, B, D, E and K from the diet just because high levels can be toxic, yet this exact type of logic is what's used when most people discuss preservatives such as ethoxyquin. When used in small amounts to prevent rancidity, preservatives are valuable and important components of the diet.
Having said all that, there are also alternatives in todays market, such as fish meal that has been preserved via more natural means, sans ethoxyquin.
Secondly, the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) is responsible for the safety, regulation, and importation of pet food into Canada. PFAC may have a voice in Canada, and offer suggestions/input etc, but it's a small voice & they don't have any hard say about anything. Different situation when one looks south at what the regulations are in the USA involving the USDA and/or AAFCO. You have no idea what type of red tape & inspections are involved, an absolute nightmare for a US based company that has to not only deal with federal regulations, but also each state individually.
And in many cases these regulations change on a frequent basis. It's gotten to the point that probably the less info one places on their label, the better, or you'll be updating your labels every 6 months. These changes cost $$$$, lots of $$$$, and someone has to eat the cost of outdated labels, and yet another run of new updated labels. It's become goofy stupid.
As an example, most states allow Vitamin C to be listed on a pet food label, but all it takes is one overly anal state inspector to decide that it must be listed as ascorbic acid, and you are forced to either remove that listing from your label, or play by their new rules. Even if the vitamin C you are listing is the total content, most comprised from the raw ingredients themselves, not from some vitamin premix. One wrong word or term can equate to your product being disallowed in an entire state, and each state requires a permit just to get your product across their border, and like everything else, you have to pay for that privilege. And that's just what takes place within the USA, now factor in all of the other various countries that some fish food products are exported to.
Canada couldn't give a rats behind with regards to things such as GMO products, but the UK requires additional labeling if the product contains .9% or greater GMO. A country such as Turkey doesn't allow
any GMO products, not even if it's as little as .0001%. They use outdated testing equipment that simply tests positive, or negative, and if it's positive your shipment will be refused at their border.
It's easy to sit back & critique manufacturers, or their labels, but the reality unless you have walked in their shoes you wouldn't even begin to understand the cluster phuck that takes place within the pet food industry, and label regulations.
The reason that ON became banned is due to the fact that the CFIA laid out some strict import regulations back in 2009. One, the facility making the food requires a clean bill of health from CA inspectors, and two the CFIA no longer allows transshipping of pet food. ON's food is now made in Thailand, where regulations are a world apart from North America, and they ship out of Bangkok to the USA, and then up into Canada. So either they didn't pass, or wouldn't allow a risk assessment at their Thai facility, or they couldn't find an importer to bring in a container directly from Thailand into Canada, or both.
I honestly have no idea. I was told by one of the CFIA inspectors in Ottawa that many Asian companies simply would not allow them access to their facilities. Gee, I wonder why?
The creator of New Life foods was importing & distributing marine fish/corals over 40 yrs ago, and has a spotless 20 yr record with his food, with some of the leading authorities in the marine world using his products over this period.
Even captive bred aquaculture facilities such as ORA use NLS in their feeding regime.
http://www.orafarm.com/products/fish...-mandarin.html
The so called concerns or problems that some of you are looking for simply don't exist. This may not be a perfect world, but if it was I guess all of those fish & corals in your tank would still be out on a reef somewhere.