Dog lovers, you won't believe this!
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Dog lovers, you won't believe this!
DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV.
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
No, Jon, they can't use aflatoxin-contaminated corn to make biofuel because the byproducts have to be used as cattle feed in order to make the whole process economically feasible, and aflatoxin is not deactivated by the fuel-making process. Besides the economics, if they had to dispose of the contaminated byproducts, it would create an unbelievably huge disposal problem, because besides the sheer volume that it would require in landfill space, biomass byproducts spoil within a matter of hours, and stink to high heaven. The only practical way to handle it is to utilize it (in a timely manner) as livestock feed, and that can only be done if the aflatoxin content is within safe limits to begin with.
Besides, a practical (economically competitive) biofuel production process has never been developed (that I'm aware of). Everyone talks about it, and a fortune in research money has been thrown at it, but it's still in the research and development stage (and it may never progress past that stage if they can't resolve some of the huge technical and logistical problems that are involved).
Ethonol production from corn has the same problems — the stillage has to be utilized as livestock feed, or the process is unaffordable. And aflatoxin survives the distillation process, so only safe corn can be used.
Frankly, I don't understand what the big fuss is about dog food, anyway. Dogs shouldn't be eating corn, or any other grains — they're carnivores, not herbivores.
That makes the safety of corn an irrelevant topic, for properly fed dogs.
Tex
Besides, a practical (economically competitive) biofuel production process has never been developed (that I'm aware of). Everyone talks about it, and a fortune in research money has been thrown at it, but it's still in the research and development stage (and it may never progress past that stage if they can't resolve some of the huge technical and logistical problems that are involved).
Ethonol production from corn has the same problems — the stillage has to be utilized as livestock feed, or the process is unaffordable. And aflatoxin survives the distillation process, so only safe corn can be used.
Frankly, I don't understand what the big fuss is about dog food, anyway. Dogs shouldn't be eating corn, or any other grains — they're carnivores, not herbivores.
That makes the safety of corn an irrelevant topic, for properly fed dogs.Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
This is so disgusting. I am so angered that the FDA gets away with this. It's getting harder and harder to stay abreast of all the sneaky additives foisted on us and yet it seems increasingly important for those of us who suffer intestinal disease. The prices at the Farmer's market are killing me but I can't take risks and the pain is too great when I do. Thank you for posting this new information as I have a dog. 
CoryGut
Age 71
Diagnosed with Lymphocytic Colitis Sept. 2010
On and off Entocort(Currently Off)
Age 71
Diagnosed with Lymphocytic Colitis Sept. 2010
On and off Entocort(Currently Off)
But are these safe levels for the livestock or for us, the consumer. Is there ever really a "safe" level or just one that doesn't cause obvious problems?The only practical way to handle it is to utilize it (in a timely manner) as livestock feed, and that can only be done if the aflatoxin content is within safe limits to begin with.
Here's another article on the same subject. http://www.examiner.com/article/fda-app ... or-indiana
Apparently it isn't always a good idea.The FDA generally forbids grain handlers from mixing corn containing aflatoxin with healthy grain, but at the request of state officials, it has relaxed this policy during years of widespread aflatoxin problems.
Deb
Deb,
Whoever wrote that article apparently isn't even sure who is in charge. The FDA has no authority to regulate any whole grains — that's the turf of the USDA, in cooperation with the individual state departments of agriculture. For human food, the state health department is in charge, and if it's processed food (flour, mixes, etc.), then the FDA takes over. Since 911, the Homeland Security regulations have given the FDA an oversight authority to safeguard against terrorist threats to the food/feed supply, but USDA and the state Feed and Fertilizer regulatory agencies still administer all the regulations where the rubber meets the road, IOW, on the farm, at grain elevators, export terminals, etc. Processors have to register with the FDA, supposedly so that the FDA can contact them in case of a national or local emergency situation due to terrorist activities, but I would be surprised if the FDA actually sent out any meaningful instructions in time to make any difference if such an event were to take place. The state agricultural agencies would almost surely be the first to respond with any worthwhile assistance. IOW, I have little faith in the FDA's ability to handle a true crisis situation in a timely manner.
Aflatoxin has been a problem here in Texas for over 20 years, and the rules that the article mentions (about mixing grain) have been in place for several years now. The Midwest always assumed that they were immune to problems with aflatoxin, so they are just now getting around to getting their ducks in a row. They should have done it years ago, because without proper rules and regulatory agency personnel who understand how to administer them, there's always a lot of confusion and a lot of mistakes are made. Texas went through that dog chow issue in 1990 and again in 1996, and every other state should have learned from that experience, but except for the southern states, the rest of the country probably assumed it couldn't happen to them.
Yes, there is no such thing as a truly safe level of aflatoxin, but the established tolerance levels are generally safe in most situations (except for people or animals who are extremely vunverable). Trust me, there is no such thing as corn with a zero level of aflatoxin. A zero test result simply means that the test wasn't representative of the load or tank that it came from. I have bought a lot of Midwest corn in years when the corn down here wasn't safe to use, and when properly tested, it always contained some level of aflatoxin. Always! The level wasn't high, but every batch had at least 2, or 3, or 5, or whatever, ppb. Occasionally the test results were higher, but they always tested under 20 ppb.
The blending regulations mentioned in the article apply to corn used for feedlot cattle (at least that's the case in Texas, and I'm sure that every state would follow the same guidelines). By the way, the proper term is "blending", not "mixing". Mixing refers to agitating a batch to obtain uniformity. Blending refers to combining two or more batches. Corn destined for human use, for export, or for dairy cattle or pets, cannot be blended. It has to contain below 20 ppb as harvested. It can be cleaned (which can remove most of the aflatoxin if done properly), but it can't be blended.
So if zero tolerance is the goal, that means that we wouldn't have any corn that could be used in this country. Mycotoxins are everywhere. We just have to make sure that no batches with dangerous levels get into the food chain.
Tex
Whoever wrote that article apparently isn't even sure who is in charge. The FDA has no authority to regulate any whole grains — that's the turf of the USDA, in cooperation with the individual state departments of agriculture. For human food, the state health department is in charge, and if it's processed food (flour, mixes, etc.), then the FDA takes over. Since 911, the Homeland Security regulations have given the FDA an oversight authority to safeguard against terrorist threats to the food/feed supply, but USDA and the state Feed and Fertilizer regulatory agencies still administer all the regulations where the rubber meets the road, IOW, on the farm, at grain elevators, export terminals, etc. Processors have to register with the FDA, supposedly so that the FDA can contact them in case of a national or local emergency situation due to terrorist activities, but I would be surprised if the FDA actually sent out any meaningful instructions in time to make any difference if such an event were to take place. The state agricultural agencies would almost surely be the first to respond with any worthwhile assistance. IOW, I have little faith in the FDA's ability to handle a true crisis situation in a timely manner.
Aflatoxin has been a problem here in Texas for over 20 years, and the rules that the article mentions (about mixing grain) have been in place for several years now. The Midwest always assumed that they were immune to problems with aflatoxin, so they are just now getting around to getting their ducks in a row. They should have done it years ago, because without proper rules and regulatory agency personnel who understand how to administer them, there's always a lot of confusion and a lot of mistakes are made. Texas went through that dog chow issue in 1990 and again in 1996, and every other state should have learned from that experience, but except for the southern states, the rest of the country probably assumed it couldn't happen to them.
Yes, there is no such thing as a truly safe level of aflatoxin, but the established tolerance levels are generally safe in most situations (except for people or animals who are extremely vunverable). Trust me, there is no such thing as corn with a zero level of aflatoxin. A zero test result simply means that the test wasn't representative of the load or tank that it came from. I have bought a lot of Midwest corn in years when the corn down here wasn't safe to use, and when properly tested, it always contained some level of aflatoxin. Always! The level wasn't high, but every batch had at least 2, or 3, or 5, or whatever, ppb. Occasionally the test results were higher, but they always tested under 20 ppb.
The blending regulations mentioned in the article apply to corn used for feedlot cattle (at least that's the case in Texas, and I'm sure that every state would follow the same guidelines). By the way, the proper term is "blending", not "mixing". Mixing refers to agitating a batch to obtain uniformity. Blending refers to combining two or more batches. Corn destined for human use, for export, or for dairy cattle or pets, cannot be blended. It has to contain below 20 ppb as harvested. It can be cleaned (which can remove most of the aflatoxin if done properly), but it can't be blended.
So if zero tolerance is the goal, that means that we wouldn't have any corn that could be used in this country. Mycotoxins are everywhere. We just have to make sure that no batches with dangerous levels get into the food chain.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Thanks, Tex. I understand how we can't NOT have mycotoxins. I just don't trust the "powers that be" to determine the safe levels (especially when we can change the guidelines of what's acceptable in the case of i.e. a drought). How much do you think this can impact our milk supply (always looking out for the grands :). And again, thanks for all the information you provide. Deb
Aflatoxin passes straight through to milk, so it would definitely be a major risk except that regulators are extremely strict about milk testing (at least they are here in Texas), and every load is carefully tested. Since milk is continuously stirred by the cooling equipment during the milking and holding period, by the time the milk truck picks it up the next morning, it's thoroughly mixed. That means that any sample tested will be representative of the load, so the test result should be accurate and consistent for the entire load. Any milk that doesn't meet the specs is dumped before it's admitted at the processor. Milk is not allowed if it tests above 20 ppb. That's parts per billion, which is a thousand times more sensitive than the tests for gluten, for example. Gluten is tested in parts per million.
Remember when Dr. Fasano wrote a letter to the FDA about a year ago, pleading with them not to lower the tolerance level for gluten below 20 ppm? Part of his pitch was a claim that it's not possible to test for gluten with an accuracy better than 5 ppm. That's obviously BS, because I've tested corn to 5 parts per billion, myself, back when I was selling food corn to chip and tortilla makers. It's true that test kits are not currently available for testing gluten below 5 ppm, but those test kits could certainly be produced to test to whatever level was desired, if there were a market for them. They're just ELISA kits, which can he tailored to test just about anything at just about any level.
You're most welcome,
Tex
Remember when Dr. Fasano wrote a letter to the FDA about a year ago, pleading with them not to lower the tolerance level for gluten below 20 ppm? Part of his pitch was a claim that it's not possible to test for gluten with an accuracy better than 5 ppm. That's obviously BS, because I've tested corn to 5 parts per billion, myself, back when I was selling food corn to chip and tortilla makers. It's true that test kits are not currently available for testing gluten below 5 ppm, but those test kits could certainly be produced to test to whatever level was desired, if there were a market for them. They're just ELISA kits, which can he tailored to test just about anything at just about any level.
You're most welcome,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
I agree with Tex - dogs' digestive systems are not designed for eating grains. I came to this conclusion 12 years ago when doing research after I was diagnosed with MC (and came to the same conclusion about humans eating grains). Since then I have fed my dogs meat-only based dog food, which is available in raw, canned, or kibble form.
Hugs,
Polly
Hugs,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
.jpg){kind=avatar}
Polly wrote:I agree with Tex - dogs' digestive systems are not designed for eating grains. I came to this conclusion 12 years ago when doing research after I was diagnosed with MC (and came to the same conclusion about humans eating grains). Since then I have fed my dogs meat-only based dog food, which is available in raw, canned, or kibble form.
Hugs,
Polly
Me too
Neither my dog or I eat grains.
Jean