New work starting to emerge on BHA
WalterNY
antioxidant BHA popped up in 2002 including:
Mutat Res 2002 Aug 26;519(1-2):103-19
The comet assay with 8 mouse organs: results with 39 currently used
food additives. Sasaki YF, Kawaguchi S, Kamaya A, Ohshita M, Kabasawa
K, Iwama K, Taniguchi K, Tsuda S.Laboratory of Genotoxicity, Faculty
of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Hachinohe National College of
Technology, Tamonoki Uwanotai 16-1, Aomori 039-1192, Japan.
yfsas...@hachinohe-ct.ac.jp
We determined the genotoxicity of 39 chemicals currently in use as
food additives.
Two antioxidants (butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated
hydroxytoluene (BHT...induced DNA damage in gastrointestinal organs.
Based on these results, we believe that more extensive assessment of
food additives in current use is warranted.
Steve Crane
> A number of new published articles on the possible carcinogenic food
> antioxidant BHA popped up in 2002 including:
>
>
> Mutat Res 2002 Aug 26;519(1-2):103-19
> The comet assay with 8 mouse organs: results with 39 currently used
At what rate? 10,000 parts per million again! in contrast pet foods
have a limit of 75 ppm. More scaremongering again I guess?
WalterNY
> > The comet assay with 8 mouse organs: results with 39 currently used
>
> At what rate? 10,000 parts per million again! in contrast pet foods
> have a limit of 75 ppm. More scaremongering again I guess?
Well Steve I could see why you would be concerned as your company and
some others happen to sell products with these genotoxic additives so
for you information that these products causes DNA damage is not good
for your marketing.
What this and other work clearly shows is that these additives can and
do cause DNA damage. DNA damage translates to cancers. That point is
very clear although I don't think as a person who sells it, you can
admit it even if you might agree. I'm sorry to say that is the nature
of conglomerates. They aren't necessarily concerned about individuals
as much as profit hense why it's easy for you to clump all dogs in the
same category.
I had dinner last night with a good friend. He is a cancer researcher
in NY. He is currently working on some interesting work related to
identifying mutated DNA strands. We had a bit of a laugh discussing
this very topic. See the problem with folks like you clumping everyone
together as if we are all equal is that it not only is incorrect, it's
outright wrong. No two individuals will react the same way to this
situation. There are hundreds of millions of stands of DNA in
everyone's body. No two are alike. It's like a lottery of DNA and no
one knows who is going to 'win'. You might have a city exposed to
asbestos in the air. The entire town is not going to develop cancer,
just the ones whose DNA isn't capable of repair. And no one can say
who that is or whether is was one exposure or many, or whether they
breathed the air for a year or a decade.
We have recearch that shows asbestos causes cancer. We can not say
that everyone exposed will get it though.
It's like getting mammograms. The more exposure you have to mammogram
x-rays the more likely you are to get breast cancer. This has to do
with individual doses and the long term exposures to that individual
exposure. For instance after ten years of mammograms, a women has been
exposed to the equivalent of 1/3 the amount of radiation that was
found in Japan after the atomic bomb. But at any point in that ten
years any one of those individual exposures could be the trigger. It's
just that more exposures increase the likelihood of a trigger.
This study shows that BHA and BHT do cause DNA damage. Yet not
everyone will get cancer. Same difference. The question is do you feel
like playing the lottery with your life or do you simply pass on
playing the game and find a food that doesn't have these additives.
That is the simplest answer. It's about individual reactions not
everyone as a whole.
The enviornmental triggers for cancer need nothing more than one
exposure to do their damage. Perhaps you know the story of the person
who smoked for 60 years and never got sick while someone who only
smoked for ten years and is 30 just got diagnosed. See regardless of
long-term exposure or quantity, cancer can happen anytime DNA mutates.
It's like saying that when lottery prizes are bigger, more people buy
tickets so your odds are better. It's not true. Say a lottery has 50
numbers where you pick six. There's 15,890,800 combinations of six
numbers that can be drawn from those 50. So the odds of selecting the
winning combination becomes 1 in 15,890,700. This is the odds of
winning a game regardless how many people play or how many tickets you
buy. It only takes one.
And we also know that these additives do not break down easily in the
body and also migrate to other parts of the body so while exposure
might be limited that carcinogen remains in the body potentially
causing more problems than just the exposure.
As for how much was used in this work it was listed at the low end to
be 50mg/kg and as high as 2000mg/kg.
These scientists were able to reach a conclusion, a more extensive
assessment of
food additives in current use is warranted.
I say do the easiest thing, simply purchase pet food that doesn't list
either of these two potentially carcinogenic substances on the label.
It's so much easier to know that your dog isn't having his DNA damage
which might lead to cancer than to think that he could be. That isn't
scare mongering, simply logic.
It's not like there is only a few choices of foods. There are plenty
of fine dog foods that don't list BHA or BHT on the label.
BTW I notice Science Diet products have uniform coloring. Can you tell
me what ingredients are used to create that coloring?
Steve Crane
> > > Mutat Res 2002 Aug 26;519(1-2):103-19
> > > The comet assay with 8 mouse organs: results with 39 currently used
> >
> > At what rate? 10,000 parts per million again! in contrast pet foods
> > have a limit of 75 ppm. More scaremongering again I guess?
>
> do cause DNA damage. DNA damage translates to cancers. That point is
Yes at obscene levels well beyond anything any animal on earth will
ever get exposed to unless the subject of a lab study. So too is
vitamin E a gentoxic chemical if given in large enough quantity.
As usual you tend toward hyperbolic ridiculousness in your efforts
here Walter.
> major ranting snipped >
> It's like getting mammograms. The more exposure you have to mammogram
> x-rays the more likely you are to get breast cancer. This has to do
> with individual doses and the long term exposures to that individual
> exposure. For instance after ten years of mammograms, a women has been
> exposed to the equivalent of 1/3 the amount of radiation that was
> found in Japan after the atomic bomb.
Oh for crying out loud, here we go again. You dispute HIV and AIDS
virus, think children shouldn't be vaccinated against disease and now
you are going to tell women they shouldn't get mammograms to find
breast cancer. Just hwo far out are you going to go with this silly
stuff.
> This study shows that BHA and BHT do cause DNA damage. Yet not
> everyone will get cancer. Same difference.
The study shows NO such thing at all. It shows if an animal is exposed
to grossly elevated amounts of anything they will either die or get
cancer. That's simply another brazenly foolish extrapolation.
> As for how much was used in this work it was listed at the low end to
> be 50mg/kg and as high as 2000mg/kg.
50mg/kg was the low end huh. You really need a math lesson. At 50mg/kg
let's assume a 22 pound dog for the sake of ease.
10kg dog X 50mgs/kg = 500mgs of BHA
Level of BHA in pet food 50 parts per million
10kg dog weighs 10,000 mgs
500mgs BHA to 10,000 mg dog.
That's what about 50,000 parts per million
Yea, I'd really get in a sweat over a study that was somewhere in the
neighborhood of 1,000 times what a dog would get at the most.
> It's not like there is only a few choices of foods. There are plenty
> of fine dog foods that don't list BHA or BHT on the label.
And as you have said yourself, not listing them on the label means
aboslutely nothing. You are so busy trying to lead the scare mongering
you missed the obvious
> BTW I notice Science Diet products have uniform coloring. Can you tell
> me what ingredients are used to create that coloring?
Yes, Nothing is used to color any food, other than the natural color
of the ingredients themselves.
WalterNY
> ever get exposed to unless the subject of a lab study. So too is
> vitamin E a gentoxic chemical if given in large enough quantity.
No Steve at a range of levels. It doesn't take enormous amounts of
anything to cause DNA damage. This study tested 39 different additives
hence the range.
> Oh for crying out loud, here we go again. You dispute HIV and AIDS
> virus, think children shouldn't be vaccinated against disease and now
> you are going to tell women they shouldn't get mammograms to find
> breast cancer. Just how far out are you going to go with this silly
> stuff.
Oh Steve, how ignorant. Sorry Steve, science clearly shows that
mammograms are useless and might be more damaging than beneficial.
I'll use your favorite method to show you, peer review: Can I have a
response after you've read it please? I love to see what you come up
with when presented with science and you don't want to believe it such
as the fact that BHA causes DNA damage. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?
Gotzsche PC, Olsen O.
Lancet 2000 Jan 8;355(9198):129-34.
The results of this study show that breast cancer screening with
mammography does not reduce breast cancer mortality and is, therefore,
unjustified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis.
Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL.
JAMA 1995 Jan 11;273(2):149-54.
The authors of this study concluded, after performing a meta-analysis
of 13 published trials, that breast cancer screening with mammography
in women aged 40-49 is not associated with a reduction in breast
cancer mortality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect on breast cancer mortality of biennial mammographic screening
of women under age 50.
Peer PG; Werre JM; Mravunac M; Hendriks JH; Holland R; Verbeek AL.
Int J Cancer, 60(6):808-11 1995 Mar 16.
The results of this study, conducted on a population of 13,500 women
aged 35-49, show that breast cancer screening with mammography for 16
years did not result in any significant reduction in breast cancer
mortality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swedish study questions mammography screening programmes. News.
Mayor, S.
BMJ 1999;318:621 ( 6 March ).
This article reports on the results of a Swedish study involving over
600,000 women, indicating that a national screening program with
mammography conducted over a 10-year period had no effect in reducing
breast cancer mortality. Breast cancer screening not only did not save
lives, but also exposed a significant number of women to unnecessary
interventions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammographic screening does not reduce breast cancer mortality.
Swedish.
Sjonell G, Stahle L.
Lakartidningen 1999 Feb 24;96(8):904-5, 908-13.
The results of this study show that a program of breast cancer
screening conducted during the period 1987-1996 had no significant
effects in reducing breast cancer mortality when, according to
clinical trials, it should have reduced it by 28%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breast screening: the case for physical examination without
mammography.
Mittra I.
Lancet 1994 Feb 5;343(8893):342-4.
This article emphasizes that physical examination is considered as
effective as mammography in reducing breast cancer mortality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Benign" tumors and "early detection" in mammography-screened patients
of a natural cohort with breast cancer.
Moody-Ayers SY, Wells CK, Feinstein AR.
Arch Intern Med 2000 Apr 24;160(8):1109-15.
The results of this study show that breast cancers detected by
mammography screening are more benign than those detected by other
methods, and are therefore associated with improved outcome,
irrespective of treatment. If patients don't know that the majority of
benign cancers will never cause them a problem, they will believe that
screening saved their life, and the confidence in the screening
program will be increased. This however, could translate in the
flourishing of an industry not necessarily directed at patient's best
interests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This study shows that BHA and BHT do cause DNA damage. Yet not
> > everyone will get cancer. Same difference.
>
> The study shows NO such thing at all. It shows if an animal is exposed
> to grossly elevated amounts of anything they will either die or get
> cancer. That's simply another brazenly foolish extrapolation.
No Steve. This article mentions nothing about an animal getting
cancer. It says this and remember it is a quote so if you have a
problem, please e-mail the authors of the article, not me. I am just
showing you what was discovered
"Two antioxidants (butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated
hydroxytoluene (BHT...INDUCED DNA DAMaGE in gastrointestinal organs."
> 50mg/kg was the low end huh. You really need a math lesson. At 50mg/kg
> let's assume a 22 pound dog for the sake of ease.
>
> 10kg dog X 50mgs/kg = 500mgs of BHA
> Level of BHA in pet food 50 parts per million
> 10kg dog weighs 10,000 mgs
> 500mgs BHA to 10,000 mg dog.
> That's what about 50,000 parts per million
>
> Yea, I'd really get in a sweat over a study that was somewhere in the
> neighborhood of 1,000 times what a dog would get at the most.
Actually, I do not know what the actual amount of either of these two
were used in the experiment. I only read the abstract which I didn't
report properly. As I see it now said in all 39 tests, up to
0.5xLD(50) or the limit dose (2000mg/kg) was used. Hence we can not
say that 1000 times what a dog would get was used. It says 'up to
.5xJD(50) so I have e-mailed the author and will tell you exactly how
many parts per million was used for the experiment with BHA and BHT.
I'll post that as soon as I get the info.
> And as you have said yourself, not listing them on the label means
> absolutely nothing. You are so busy trying to lead the scare mongering
> you missed the obvious
No not at all. I have always said we don't know if BHA is in a can of
food even if the label doesn't list it.. But what I can say is that if
the ingredient bag lists it, then we KNOW its there and we can avoid
that food. Nice try though Steve!
If you see a dog food in a store that lists BHA or BHT know that
published peer review shows it causes DNA damage and I would find a
bag of food that doesn't use it.
Now some who sell products with these DNA damaging additives like to
find any fault in the science such as 'well we don't put enough for a
problem'. Well that is like saying that the nuclear plant has a leak
but we have determined the amount of radiation isn't near the level
that causes damage. Are you going to hang around because someone tries
to tell you it's not enough to cause a problem when it's clear that
both BHA and BHT cause DNA damage? Not only that, but that these
additives do not readily break down in the body but are stored for a
periods of times in various organs where perhaps they are doing more
damage.
Tell that to the folks at the surrounding communities of Chernobyl
that were told they would be OK as the release was powerful but short
in duration. Today a large percentage of the people who lived in a
few hundred mile radius are either dead or dying from cancer. And in
the UK a sudden childhood cancer rise is attributed to Chernobyl. So
sure small doses of radiation might be safe but since every individual
is deferent, we can say that two will react the same. In other words,
take ten dogs, feed five 1000 times the amount of BHA or BHT found in
dog food, and feed the other five regular dog food and no one knows
whether the high dose or the low dose will cause DNA damage. This is
one of the resons why its fine to use more than normal doses in
studies, it's not about quantity but the carcenogen.
All we know for sure is that both BHA and BHA cause DNA damage. Very
simply when it comes to cancer if you know something can cause it,
regardless of the level. It's best to avoid it. Worst of all is that
this guy who sells dog food (Mr. Crane) with these additives will say
anything to make it seem OK. There are science diet products that
don't list BHA or BHT. I would suggest you switch.
I'll leave everyone with this small snip-it from the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine http://www.pcrm.org
Nutrition Education Curriculum
Section Two:
Cancer Prevention
Cancer starts when the DNA in a cell is damaged by a toxic chemical,
radiation, or other factors, causing it to multiply. Eventually, the
growing tumor invades healthy tissues and may also release some of its
cells to travel to other parts of the body where new tumors form, a
process called metastasis.
While detection and treatment remain vitally important in our battle
against cancer, research has given us powerful tools that help prevent
it. According to the National Cancer Institute, as many as 80 percent
of cancers can be attributed to environmental factors, the most
important of which are diet and smoking. Tobacco is responsible for
approximately 30 percent of cancers, including those arising in the
lung, mouth, esophagus, kidney, and bladder. Food accounts for roughly
35-60 percent of cancers, including cancers of the stomach, colon,
liver, prostate, breast, uterus, and ovary, among other sites. By
helping our patients change their smoking and diet habits, we help
them reduce their cancer risk.
Most people are aware that some foods contain chemical carcinogens.
However, there are other very important ways that foods influence
cancer risk. First, foods affect the concentration of sex hormones in
the blood, which influences the risk of cancer of the prostate,
breast, uterus, and ovary. Second, some foods increase the formation
of carcinogens in the digestive tract, while others have the opposite
effect. This is of particular importance in cancers of the colon and
rectum. Third, foods can alter the ability of the immune system to
recognize and eliminate cancer cells.
The link between diet and cancer is not new. An article in Scientific
American in January 1892, observed that "cancer is most frequent among
those branches of the human race where carnivorous habits prevail."
Our knowledge has grown enormously since then, and we can now use this
knowledge for our patients' benefit.
To the extent we succeed at preventing cancer, we help our patients
avoid the rigors, frustrations, and expense of cancer treatment, and
the toll that this disease would otherwise continue to take.
Steve Crane
> hydroxytoluene (BHT...INDUCED DNA DAMaGE in gastrointestinal organs."
>
> > 50mg/kg was the low end huh. You really need a math lesson. At 50mg/kg
> > let's assume a 22 pound dog for the sake of ease.
> >
> > 10kg dog X 50mgs/kg = 500mgs of BHA
> > Level of BHA in pet food 50 parts per million
> > 10kg dog weighs 10,000 mgs
> > 500mgs BHA to 10,000 mg dog.
> > That's what about 50,000 parts per million
> >
> > Yea, I'd really get in a sweat over a study that was somewhere in the
> > neighborhood of 1,000 times what a dog would get at the most.
>
> Actually, I do not know what the actual amount of either of these two
> were used in the experiment. I only read the abstract which I didn't
> report properly. As I see it now said in all 39 tests, up to
> 0.5xLD(50) or the limit dose (2000mg/kg) was used. Hence we can not
> say that 1000 times what a dog would get was used. It says 'up to
> .5xJD(50) so I have e-mailed the author and will tell you exactly how
> many parts per million was used for the experiment with BHA and BHT.
> I'll post that as soon as I get the info.
OK I see, you didn't know what the amount was, but decided to use this
report to further your scaremongering about artificial anitoxidants.
If this was done anywhere close to the numbers you report above it is
simply another totally foolish test. Doing a test at half the lethal
dose at which 50% of the animals die is completely ridiculous and
totally meaningless.
WalterNY
> If this was done anywhere close to the numbers you report above it is
> simply another totally foolish test.
Well that's interesting Steve. I wonder if when they are filling out
the forms to get the funding for the experiment, the scientists say,
hey you know what, let's feed ridiculous amounts of these substances
and prove nothing. No, they don't do that. What the average layperson
does not know or understand is that it is common to use higher amounts
of a suspected substance to demonstrate something. The reason is
simple. IF you suspect something as a DNA destroyer, regardless of the
amount, if it destroys DNA, it can do it at any level. The body has a
method of repairing damaged DNA. So if I only give tiny amounts of the
suspected substance, I might not be able to show a result because the
body might have the ability at repairing the damage. The thing is
that no two persons have the same ability at repair so you might feed
ten rats 100 times the amount and nothing could happen while you feed
ten other rats 1000 times les and you could have the damage done. It
works both ways, but we know that over feeding of these suspected
carcinogens will prove the point. It is not wrong. In fact nothing
that is tested for as a carcinogen is used at levels less than an
amount the researchers assume will be stronger than the bodies ability
of repair. Very simply we can not spend 80 years doing one test, so we
use a scienctific method to prove what amount would do the same thing
and we use it. So when Steve Crane likes to joke that they use 100
times the amount in his dog food know two things. First that substance
doesn't need to be at 100 times the amount to cause the cancer,
researchers only use larger amounts to help them show it could.
Secondly regardless of how many times Steve Crane likes to try to stir
up dirt and mask t hetruth, these substances cause cancer.
What the science shows us very clearly is that both of these
antioxidants causes DNA damage. For those that don't understand, here
is the dilemma. Both BHA and BHT have been okayed by the Food and Drug
Administration for use. Both of these additives are oxidants. Think of
bleach. We use bleach to wash cloths because bleach helps remove dirt.
If you use bleach with some fabrics, you will not be wearing those
fabrics again. What the science shows is this, the oxidative
characteristics of BHA and BHT while in one regard do help preserve,
in another may contribute to carcinogenicity or tumorigenicity. There
is scientific evidence that certain persons have difficulty
metabolizing BHA and BHT, resulting in health and behavior changes.
Notice I use the phrase 'certain persons'. The reason for that is that
we can not say it will affect everyone. So if I tell you that
something might cause cancer in some people, wouldn't it make sense to
hedge your bets and to avoid it? And as I said before, DNA damage can
happen at any level. In other words an ounce or a pound of something
might cause the same effect. It all depends on the individual.
One of the reasons they use higher amounts than normal in these
experiments is to make sure they get results. But what is clear is
that both BHA and BHT have been shown in the science you like to quote
as cancer causing. The best choice for a person looking to hedge their
bets on cancer is to avoid both of these preservatives for themselves
and their dogs. So for folks using Science Diet products with either,
my suggestion is you find a Science Diet product that doesn't use
them. They do make a number of products where these cancer causing
chemicals are not used. That is not scare mongering, simply common
sense. There are plenty of dog food formulas that don't use them. As a
matter of fact, my personal thought on it is that if you are feeding
food that requires any of these antioxidants, the quality of the food
wouldn't be worth feeding in the first place.
Here are 24 citations of the potential dangers of both BHT and BHA.
Remember two things, First Steve Crane will defend Science Diet even
if it has cancer causing ingredients. It does and he defends it. He
will say anything to try to tell you that these cancer causing
antioxidants are safe. Two, I don't profit from anything I say. I only
want folks to know the truth about what they feed their dogs. There
are plenty of products that do not contain these ingredients on the
label. I'd say take a look at the Science below and consider the
possibility that you dog might get cancer form these ingredients.
Steve Cranes rants remind me of the cigarette industry. For years
smoking was very common. No one knew that cigarettes caused cancer.
Then someone made the association. Tests were done and sure enough,
cigarettes were shown to cause cancer. The first thing the cigarette
industry did was cry foul. They claimed that researchers were feeding
rats 100's of times the amount a human would get smoking and hence the
tests were biased. Of course as I explained before, it doesn't matter
how much you feed but you simply can't do a test for 80 years. You
need a result in the time allotted. So it is perfectly acceptable to
speed up the processes for the purpose of the experiment. So for many
years even though time and again the science showed cigarettes caused
cancer, the industry fought off every notion just as folks like Steve
Crane do. Hundreds of studies appeared showing cigarettes caused
cancer and still because it might damage an entire industry, the
government refused to accept the science. Then after it became simply
too clear to deny any more, the government finally changed their
position. BHA and BHT are big parts of the food you and your dog eats.
For the government to admit what the science shows clearly would have
serious economic consequences. Bit don't wait for what we already
know, simply avoid these preservatives and you'll be doing your dog
and yourself a favor.
Molecular mechanisms of butylated hydroxylanisole-induced toxicity:
induction of apoptosis through direct release of cytochrome c. , Yu R,
Mandlekar S, Kong AT., Molecular Pharmacology 2000 Aug;58(2):431-7
" . . . the use of BHA as a chemopreventive agent against cancer in
human has been challenged by the observation that BHA may exert toxic
effect in some tissues of animals. . . Here, we report that BHA
induces apoptosis (cell death) in freshly isolated rat hepatocytes
(liver cells). . . ."
Lung tumor promotion by BHT, Malkinson, AM, Crisp Data Base National
Institutes Of Health 1999
"...The food additive, butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), encourages the
development of tumors from previously initiated cells. ...Chronic
administration of BHT to inbred mice down-regulates the pulmonary
concentrations of the alpha isozyme of protein kinase C (PKCa) and
calpain in promotion-sensitive strains ... " The researchers are
searching for the gene responsible.
Effects of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene
(BHT) on the acetylation of 2-aminofluorene and DNA-2-aminofluorene
adducts in the rat. Chung JG, Toxicol Sci 1999 Oct;51(2):202-10
"...This is the first demonstration that synthetic phenolic
antioxidants decrease the N-acetylation of carcinogens and formation
of DNA-carcinogen adducts in vivo. "
The effect of butylated hydroxytoluene on selected immune surveillance
parameters in rats bearing enzyme-altered hepatic preneoplastic
lesions. Tryphonas H,
Lacroix F, Lok E, Jee P, Clayson DB, Hayward S, Miller D, Mehta R,
Food Chem Toxicol 1999 Jul;37(7):671-81
"...The induction 0.5% BHT treatment resulted in a significant
reduction in the natural killer (NK) cell activity of splenocytes...."
Antioxidants reversibly inhibit the spontaneous resumption of meiosis.
Takami M, Preston SL, Toyloy VA, Behrman HR., The American Journal of
Physiology 1999 Apr;276(4 Pt 1):E684-8
Reproductive Biology Section. . . Yale University School of Medicine
" ... cell-permeant antioxidants (BHA) inhibit spontaneous resumption
of meiosis (special cell division for eggs or sperms), which may
implicate a role of oxygen radicals in oocyte maturation"
Free radical formation and erythrocyte membrane alterations during
MetHb formation induced by the BHA metabolite, tert-butylhydroquinone.
Stolze K, Nohl H., Free Radical Research 1999 Apr;30(4):295-303
BHA via tBHQ thereby leads to harmful effects on erythrocyte (red
blood cell) membrane structures. Moreover, deleterious effects on
other biological membranes are also likely to occur. "
Hepatotoxicity induced by the anti-oxidant food additive, butylated
hydroxytoluene (BHT), in rats: an electron microscopical study. Safer
AM, al-Nughamish AJ, Histol Histopathol 1999 Apr;14(2):391-406
BHT resulted in a significant increase in liver weight. The liver
cells presented gradual vacuolization, cytoplasmic disintegration,
"moth-eaten" appearance, ballooning degeneration, hepatocellular
necrosis, aggregation of chromatin material around the periphery of
the nuclear envelope, SER proliferation, RER clumping with broken
cisternae, withered and autolyzed mitochondria, augmentation of lipid
droplets and glycogen depletion.
Hepatic and associated response of rats to pregnancy, lactation and
simultaneous treatment with butylated hydroxytoluene. McFarlane M, et
al., Food Chem Toxicol 1997 Aug;35(8):753-67
"... rats receiving BHT at a nominal dose of 500 mg/kg body weight/day
showed liver enlargement accompained by induction of pentoxyresorufin
O-depentylase and glutathione S-transferase, and proliferation of the
endoplasmic reticulum. Pups from these dams were of the same weight at
birth as controls but lost weight during the lactation period. This
deficit was not recovered by the time the experiment was terminated.
..."
Effect of butylhydroxytoluene and related compounds on permeability of
the inner mitochondrial membrane. Gudz T, Eriksson O, Kushnareva Y,
Saris NE, Novgorodov S., Arch Biochem Biophys 1997 Jun 1;342(1):143-56
" Mitochondrial inner membrane contains a latent pore (PTP) that when
opened uncouples mitochondrial energy transduction and allows rapid
equilibration of low-molecular-weight solutes between the matrix and
exterior. Based on sensitivity of the PTP to well-known free radical
scavenger butylhydroxytoluene (BHT), it has been proposed that
increased steady-state level of oxygen radicals, and subsequent
radical attack of proteins and lipids, is a central event in
activation of this pore . . . BHT operates independently of its free
radical scavenging activity. . . . "
Effect of butylated hydroxytoluene on alpha-tocopherol content in
liver and adipose tissue of rats. Siman CM, Eriksson UJ, Toxicol Lett
1996 Oct;87(2-3):103-8
The results show that BHT has adverse effects in the liver. BHT is
metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system in the liver and may be
converted to prooxidative compounds during this process.
Toxicology of the synthetic antioxidants BHA and BHT in comparison
with the natural antioxidant vitamin E Kahl R, Kappus H, Z Lebensm
Unters Forsch 1993 Apr;196(4):329-38
"...Specific toxic effects to the lung have only been observed with
BHT. The other described toxic effects of BHA and BHT are less
characteristic and often occur only after high dosage and long-term
treatment. However, BHA induces in animals tumours of the forestomach,
which are dose dependent, whereas BHT induces liver tumours in
long-term experiments. ... all published findings agree with the fact
that BHA and BHT are tumour promoters. In contrast to BHA and BHT,
vitamin E is not carcinogenic."
Three generation toxicity study of butylated hydroxytoluene
administered to mice. Tanaka T, Oishi S, Takahashi O. Toxicology
Letters 1993 Mar;66(3):295-304
" Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) was administered to mice, . . . in
the diet at levels of 0 (control), 0.015, 0.045, 0.135, and 0.405%, .
. . .The body weight of the pups of the 0.015% BHT group was increased
at birth and during the lactation period for each generation. . . In
the neurobehavioural parameters, a few parameters were increased in
treatment groups; i.e., surface righting . . . and negative geotaxis .
. . "
Safety aspects of food preservatives. Parke DV, Lewis DF, Food Addit
Contam 1992 Sep-Oct;9(5):561-77
"...although most preservatives are now considered to be without
potential adverse effects and are classified as GRAS, [Generally
Regarded As Safe] there have been problems concerning the safety of
some of these chemicals, including the possibility of allergies from
benzoic acid and sulphites, the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines
from nitrites, and the possible rodent carcinogenicity of BHA and
BHT..."
Cytotoxicity of butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene
in isolated rat hepatocytes. Thompson D, Moldeus P, Biochem Pharmacol
1988 Jun 1;37(11):2201-7
"...Using isolated rat liver mitochondria we observed that both BHA
and BHT inhibited respiratory control primarily by stimulating state 4
respiration and thus acting as membrane uncouplers. BHA and BHT also
effectively dissipated membrane potential across the mitochondrial
membrane and caused the release of calcium and mitochondrial swelling.
These mitochondrial effects were reflected by a rapid decrease in ATP
levels in intact hepatocytes which preceded cell death...."
Inhibition by some phenolic antioxidants of Ca2+ uptake and
neurotransmitter release from brain synaptosomes. Zoccarato F,
Pandolfo M, Deana R, Alexandre A,
Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1987 Jul 31;146(2):603-10
"...While the Ca2+ uptake observed under non depolarizing conditions
is not affected by these agents, the depolarization induced Ca2+
uptake is strongly inhibited. ..."
Synthetic antioxidants: biochemical actions and interference with
radiation, toxic compounds, chemical mutagens and chemical
carcinogens. Kahl R, Toxicology 1984 Dec;33(3-4):185-228
"...The beneficial interactions of antioxidants with physical and
chemical noxae are contrasted to those leading to unfavorable effects.
... At present, the latter one can most adequately be characterized as
tumor promotion at least in the case of butylated hydroxytoluene..."
Differentiation induction of murine erythroleukemia cells by butylated
hydroxytoluene. Ohno Y, Takuma T, Asahi K, Isono K, FEBS Lett 1984 Jan
9;165(2):277-9
"Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) ... has been found to induce the
differentiation of murine erythroleukemia cells. BHT also amplifies
the differentiation inducing activity of DMSO."
Effect of antioxidants on the release of 3H-serotonin by rat brain
synaptosomes Kovaleva ES, Prilipko LL, Muranov KO, Kagan VE, Biull
Eksp Biol Med 1983 Oct;96(10):55-7
"..All free radical scavengers used inhibited 3T-hydroxytryptamine
uptake and stimulated 3H-hydroxytryptamine release, with the efficacy
being reduced in the following order: 7-hydroxyaminazine greater than
butylated hydroxytoluene greater than
paginol-2-methyl-6-ethyl-3-hydroxypyridine greater than
alpha-tocopherol..."
Recurrent urticaria: clinical investigation of 330 patients. Juhlin L,
Br J Dermatol 1981 Apr;104(4):369-81
Of 330 consecutive patients with recurrent urticaria, "A personal
history of rhinitis, asthma or atopic dermatitis was recorded in more
than one-third. Nasal polyps, migraine and arthralgia were found in
6-7% of the patients. Severe psychiatric problems were mentioned by
16%. Abdominal problems, mainly gastritis, were described by 44%....
Provocation tests with various food additives such as azo dyes,
benzoates, butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), butylated hydroxyanisole
(BHA) sorbic acid, quinoline yellow, carotene, canthaxanthine, annatto
and nitrite revealed one or more positive reactions in one-third of
the patients..."
Developmental neurobehavioral toxicity of butylated hydroxyanisole
(BHA) in rats. Vorhees CV, Butcher RE, Brunner RL, Wootten V, Sobotka
TJ, Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 1981 Fall;3(3):321-9
"Comparison of the present results to a similar study using BHT
clearly indicates that BHA at equivalent dietary doses is considerably
less toxic than BHT. The present results also suggest that BHA is not
a potent behavioral toxin, although it is developmentally toxic using
non-behavioral measures."
Contact urticaria from nickel and plastic additives
(butylhydroxytoluene, oleylamide). Osmundsen PE, Contact Dermatitis
1980 Dec;6(7):452-4
"...In one of the patients contact with plastic articles also provoked
urticaria. A 20-min patch test with several articles of plastic
(polyethylene and PVC) and with butylhydroxytoluene (BHT) 1% in
ethanol elicited urticarial reactions. BHT is used as an antioxidant
in plastic..."
Species and strain differences in the butylated hydroxytoluene
(BHT)-producing induction of hepatic drug oxidation enzymes. Kawano S,
Nakao T, Hiraga K, Jpn J Pharmacol 1980 Dec;30(6):861-70
" [rats and mice given] (BHT)-containing diet for 6 days produced a
marked increase in hepatic weight and microsomal protein content.
However, the augmentations of cytochrome P-450 content and drug
oxidation activities were much more significant, i.e. 2.5-fold and
more than three-fold increases were observed on a body weight basis,
respectively. BHT-induced cytochrome P-450 cannot be distinguished
from phenobarbital (PB)-induced cytochrome in many respects..."
Behavioural and developmental effects of butylated hydroxytoluene
dosed to rats in utero and in the lactation period. Meyer O, Hansen E,
Toxicology 1980;16(3):247-58
"...The applied dose of BHT [500 mg/kg to rats] exerted a significant
adverse effect on body weight in both F0 and F1-animals and on several
developmental parameters in F1-animals. The effects arose during the
lactation period."
The effect of butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene on
behavioral development of mice. Stokes JD, Scudder CL, Dev Psychobiol
1974 Jul;7(4):343-50
"The chronic ingestion of .5% butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) or
butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) by pregnant mice and their offspring
resulted in a variety of behavioral changes. Compared to controls,
BHA-treated offspring showed increased exploration, decreased
sleeping, decreased self-grooming, slower learning, and a decreased
orientation reflex. BHT-treated offspring showed decreased sleeping,
increased social and isolation-induced aggression, and a severe
deficit in learning."
Edward
And I thought my posts were long!
Regards,
Edward
Steve Crane
> > report to further your scaremongering about artificial antioxidants.
> > If this was done anywhere close to the numbers you report above it is
> > simply another totally foolish test.
>
> does not know or understand is that it is common to use higher amounts
> of a suspected substance to demonstrate something. The reason is
> simple. IF you suspect something as a DNA destroyer, regardless of the
> amount, if it destroys DNA, it can do it at any level.
Utter nonsense! There is no data to support such extrapolation. You
have some burning emotional desire to prove the sky is falling. It is
just utter nonsense to suggest that if 1000X amount of something is
bad, then so must 1/1,000,000th of the same thing be equally bad.
That's just utter lunatic fringe nonsense.
> So when Steve Crane likes to joke that they use 100
> times the amount in his dog food know two things. First that substance
> doesn't need to be at 100 times the amount to cause the cancer,
> researchers only use larger amounts to help them show it could.
I wonder why you can't EVER prove this wild claim. Prove to us that
the levels of artificial antioxidants in pet foods CAUSE ANY harm of
any kind. You know damn well there is no such data anywhere. This is
nothing but hyperbolic scaremongering at it's worse.
> Secondly regardless of how many times Steve Crane likes to try to stir
> up dirt and mask t hetruth, these substances cause cancer.
Vitamin E, Vitamin C, Vitamin A, beta carotene, alpha lipoic acid, etc
all are deadly at high enough doses. I haven't noted you railing on
about the horrendous risks these pose. I wonder why that is? If you
are going to assume deadly characteristics at grossly elevated levels
for artificial antioxidants then you must also assume the same deadly
characteristics for grossly elevated levels for these antioxidants as
well. But of course only the lunatic fringe would agree with such
claims about vitamins, whereas the same process applied to nasty
sounding chemicals with long names is easy to pass along as
"reasonable". You're a real hoot Walter. Life must be terrible.
>
> What the science shows us very clearly is that both of these
> antioxidants causes DNA damage. For those that don't understand, here
> is the dilemma. Both BHA and BHT have been okayed by the Food and Drug
> Administration for use. Both of these additives are oxidants. Think of
> bleach.
No they are not OXIDANTS they are ANTIoxidants - think Vitamin E,
Vitamin C, Omega Fatty acids, Alpha lipoic acid. Another slip of the
keyboard Walter, or another deliberate attempt to further an
emotionally held opinion, not based in fact or science?
> So for folks using Science Diet products with either,
> my suggestion is you find a Science Diet product that doesn't use
> them.
Why the incessant choice of picking on Science Diet. Can't you spell
any other brand or is it just that good old Taliban thinking coming to
the fore?
> Here are 24 citations of the potential dangers of both BHT and BHA.
> Remember two things, First Steve Crane will defend Science Diet even
> if it has cancer causing ingredients. It does and he defends it.
Yes I do, because there are no levels of such ingredients in any
Science Diet product nor in ANY brand of pet food. That's just simple
BS in the extreme. None of the long list of quotes Walter left below
amount to diddly squat. All were done at levels many thousands of
times higher than what is used in pet food, or pizza for that matter.
Walter would have you believe there is no difference between taking 2
aspirin or taking 660 aspirin. He would have you believe there is no
difference between taking 5,000 iu of Vitamin A and taking 1,650,000
iu of Vitamin A. (That amount of vitamin A would be fatal by the way)
The difference between the 5,000 and 1,650,000 units is exactly the
same ratio as exists between the studies Walter quotes and the amounts
used in pet food and wonder bread.
He
> will say anything to try to tell you that these cancer causing
> antioxidants are safe. Two, I don't profit from anything I say. I only
> want folks to know the truth about what they feed their dogs.
Bullshit, you have hoisted yourself up by your own petard so often
with such lunatic fringe claims that your own sense of self worth is
what is at stake. A FAR more compelling reason to obfuscate the truth
than anything I can possibly think of. To fall back on the smoking
issue again shows the weakness of your arguments and just how
desperate you have become.
What is most annoying is that while Walter diverts attention toward
some supposed fantasy disease - by which not one single pet has died -
we cease paying attention to real disesase that kill real pets
everyday. Kindey disease kills pets every day. Unleashed pets die in
the street everyday. While we waste bandwidth on fantasy diseases the
real killers get away again.
WalterNY
> have some burning emotional desire to prove the sky is falling. It is
> just utter nonsense to suggest that if 1000X amount of something is
> bad, then so must 1/1,000,000th of the same thing be equally bad.
> That's just utter lunatic fringe nonsense.
Then I guess all the published peer review which does just that are a
bunch or lunatics. It makes you wonder how it gets into peer review.
Why would they waste all this time and money showing that BHA and BHT
cause cancer? Steve your out of your league here.
> I wonder why you can't EVER prove this wild claim. Prove to us that
> the levels of artificial antioxidants in pet foods CAUSE ANY harm of
> any kind. You know damn well there is no such data anywhere. This is
> nothing but hyperbolic scaremongering at it's worse.
Sure, prove to me that your dog food doesn't do any of these things?
> Vitamin E, Vitamin C, Vitamin A, beta carotene, alpha lipoic acid, etc
> all are deadly at high enough doses.
So is water. But we know that these substances at reasonably high
levels cause DNA mutation, water doesn't.
>You're a real hoot Walter. Life must be terrible.
I'm such a hoot that I'm still waiting for a response to my assertions
that mammographies are useless. You did say I was crazy in saying
that. I responded with 24 citations to show ing that what I said had
sound science behind it, but yyou ignore science that doesn't fit what
you want to say. All these scientists must be crazy too. It's a wonder
how you can support peer review in one sentence and denounce it in
another. Oh, yea, if it sells Science Diet, it must be good science,
especially if the dog food industry funds it and publishes the results
they need to get what they want.
>Another slip of the
> keyboard Walter, or another deliberate attempt to further an
> emotionally held opinion, not based in fact or science?
No I meant oxidants Steve. My example of bleach was to express to
those with no background how different quantities of a substance can
have different reactions. In science acceleration can be negative and
a positive. I'm just using the root oxidant.
> Why the incessant choice of picking on Science Diet. Can't you spell
> any other brand or is it just that good old Taliban thinking coming to
> the fore?
Not at all. You responded to my original post calling it ridiculous.
Since you work for Science Diet, I am only speaking in terms you
understand. While other dog foods also contain these cancer causing
substances, since you are discussing it, I am using your product. If
someone was from another pet food manufacturer that used these cancer
causing substances, I'd use their product in discussion too. I give an
answer which you can easily understand, find a Science Diet product
that doesn't list BHT or BHA. Frankly if someone is feeding dry food
to a dog exclusively, in my opinion they are cheating their dog out of
health.
> None of the long list of quotes Walter left below
> amount to diddly squat.
Of course not because some Science Diet products have these substances
in them. Just like the cigarette manufacturers denying cigarettes
cause cancer.
> Walter would have you believe there is no difference between taking 2
> aspirin or taking 660 aspirin.
And you know what for some people two can have a much more severe
impact on the stomach lining than one. See Steve cancer isn't likea 8
oz can of soup. While some folks get full on one can some do not.
Cancer is just like that. Every day your body is assaulted with over
100,000 DNA mutations. 99.9999 percent of the time your body fixes
these problems. BUT! When it can't you get cancer. Since we know these
substances cause DNA mutations, it's best to avoid them. Sure most of
your time the body will fix the mutation, but why get there in the
first place?
> He would have you believe there is no
> difference between taking 5,000 iu of Vitamin A and taking 1,650,000
> iu of Vitamin A.
Might be fatal and it might be not. Like I keep saying and you don't
understand because to you all dogs can eat the same dog food and react
exactly the same way, Vit A will damage the liver but everyone is
different. Toxicity can appear in some individuals at relatively low
dosages as low as 500iu. Here is some fun trivia for you, a polar bear
has so much Vitamin A in its liver that eating a small portion will
kill any human as it has on average 9 million IU's. The condition of
Retinol overdose is called Hypervitaminosis and I'm sorry to say that
your numbers are off again. While 1,650,000 would be very toxic and
might kill, it probably takes more like 3,000,000IU's to kill a
person. Nice try though.
And as for your comparison, it doesn't make sense because I am talking
about gene mutation and you are talking about liver enzyme toxicity.
If you want to talk on my level use something like radiation. See if
you do then it will become clearer. One rad might not cause harm, but
100 rads will. The problem is that we don't know if one rad will, it
all depends on the individual and whether or not he can repair the
damage. More exposure means greater risk but hat does not disclude
small doses.
> The difference between the 5,000 and 1,650,000 units is exactly the
> same ratio as exists between the studies Walter quotes and the amounts
> used in pet food and wonder bread.
Apples and oranges. Vitamin A affects the liver. It does not cause DNA
mutations. It only take one small electron of a substance to cause DNA
damage. Big difference Steve!!
>To fall back on the smoking
> issue again shows the weakness of your arguments and just how
> desperate you have become.
I'm not desperate as I have nothing to sell. You do hense even when a
product you sell has cancer causing substances you'll act like
everything is peachy. Who's panicking?
> What is most annoying is that while Walter diverts attention toward
> some supposed fantasy disease - by which not one single pet has died -
> we cease paying attention to real diseases that kill real pets
> everyday. Kidney disease kills pets every day. Unleashed pets die in
> the street everyday. While we waste bandwidth on fantasy diseases the
> real killers get away again.
Because the topic of this post isn't "kidney disease", which is mostly
a cause from diet and environmental toxins too, or "stray dogs" which
are caused by us selfish humans. The topic is BHA and so far I've
stayed on topic.
As for "fantasy disease", cancer is one of the leading killers of
dogs. Folks like you think prevention is treating it after you get it.
Smart folks know that prevention is your best treatment. Even if we
were not sure BHA and BHT caused cancer (which the science shows is
clear), the easiest thing to do is avoid dog food that lists it on the
label.
Now who is it that seems to be diverting the topic away from the
subject? Strays, kidneys, Vitamin A? Once again, nice try Steve. I
have to give you "A" for effort.
As for the folks on this board, they have both sides of the
discussion, now let the make up their own mind
Steve Crane
> > have some burning emotional desire to prove the sky is falling. It is
> > just utter nonsense to suggest that if 1000X amount of something is
> > bad, then so must 1/1,000,000th of the same thing be equally bad.
> > That's just utter lunatic fringe nonsense.
>
> Then I guess all the published peer review which does just that are a
> bunch or lunatics. It makes you wonder how it gets into peer review.
> Why would they waste all this time and money showing that BHA and BHT
> cause cancer? Steve your out of your league here.
They only provede that at grossly elevated levels they can cause
cancer, so too can nearly any element in nature. They proved NOTHING
relative the amounts used in pet foods.
> > I wonder why you can't EVER prove this wild claim. Prove to us that
> > the levels of artificial antioxidants in pet foods CAUSE ANY harm of
> > any kind. You know damn well there is no such data anywhere. This is
> > nothing but hyperbolic scaremongering at it's worse.
>
> Sure, prove to me that your dog food doesn't do any of these things?
I see when you lose the argument you try to get the opposition to
prove negatives. If you have a wife prove to me you've quit beating
her will ya.
>
> > Vitamin E, Vitamin C, Vitamin A, beta carotene, alpha lipoic acid, etc
> > all are deadly at high enough doses.
>
> So is water. But we know that these substances at reasonably high
> levels cause DNA mutation, water doesn't.
I didn't see water on my list above, all of which can also cause DNA
mutation, I'll stay tuned for your next battle to remove all the
anitoxidants above from pet foods for the same reasoning you use for
artificial antioxidants.
> >Another slip of the
> > keyboard Walter, or another deliberate attempt to further an
> > emotionally held opinion, not based in fact or science?
>
> No I meant oxidants Steve. My example of bleach was to express to
> those with no background how different quantities of a substance can
> have different reactions. In science acceleration can be negative and
> a positive. I'm just using the root oxidant.
Uh excuse me, you claimed BHA BHT were OXIDANTS and then went on to
rant about bleach which is ineed an oxidant. BHA BHT are
ANTI-oxidants.
>
> > Why the incessant choice of picking on Science Diet. Can't you spell
> > any other brand or is it just that good old Taliban thinking coming to
> > the fore?
>
> Not at all. You responded to my original post calling it ridiculous.
> Since you work for Science Diet, I am only speaking in terms you
> understand.
LOL, Right I buy that one.
> > Walter would have you believe there is no difference between taking 2
> > aspirin or taking 660 aspirin.
>
> And you know what for some people two can have a much more severe
> impact on the stomach lining than one.
We're not talking about the rare one in a million person here Walter.
You propose Barf is the best diet for the majority of dogs, not just
the one in a million dog. Walter you are the person trying to
insinuate that feeding a commercial diet will cause all sorts of
diseae problems to the majority of dogs. Your claims surrounding
artificial antioxidants applied to dogs in general, not the one in a
million animal.
> > He would have you believe there is no
> > difference between taking 5,000 iu of Vitamin A and taking 1,650,000
> > iu of Vitamin A.
>
> Might be fatal and it might be not. Like I keep saying and you don't
> understand because to you all dogs can eat the same dog food and react
> exactly the same way, Vit A will damage the liver but everyone is
> different. Toxicity can appear in some individuals at relatively low
> dosages as low as 500iu. Here is some fun trivia for you, a polar bear
> has so much Vitamin A in its liver that eating a small portion will
> kill any human as it has on average 9 million IU's. The condition of
> Retinol overdose is called Hypervitaminosis and I'm sorry to say that
> your numbers are off again. While 1,650,000 would be very toxic and
> might kill, it probably takes more like 3,000,000IU's to kill a
> person. Nice try though.
In the long rant above, nothing was changed. You keep trying to
extrapolate values from studies that were grossly and hugely in excess
of any exposure any animal might get from commercial foods. It doesn't
fly.
> > The difference between the 5,000 and 1,650,000 units is exactly the
> > same ratio as exists between the studies Walter quotes and the amounts
> > used in pet food and wonder bread.
>
> Apples and oranges. Vitamin A affects the liver. It does not cause DNA
> mutations. It only take one small electron of a substance to cause DNA
> damage. Big difference Steve!!
No it is not apples and oranges. You are claiming identical results
from ingesting very minute quantities of artificial antioxidants. No
such proof exists anywhere. The comparsion is quit valid and proves
the foolishness of your ongoing attempts to prove commercial diets are
evil incarnate.
Walter thinks you should believe him, despite having no proof of
his claims whatsoever. He thinks you should buy the fact that minute
quantities of something are just as deadly as grossly and hugely
elevated quantities of the same thing. Examples I gave are aspirin and
vitamin A. Both are quite valid examples of why trying to extrapolate
damage from BHA at 50 ppm is radically different than damage at 10,000
ppm. Walter thinks that since I work for a commercial pet food company
I am just a shill in the cogs of industry. That's all fine and dandy.
At the same time Walter would have you believe that the following
agencies who have approved the use of BHA and BHT for human and pet
foods are all wrong and are involved in a giant conspiracy to kill
your pet. That would mean the FDA, USDA, APHIS, CDC, WHO, ACVN, CVN,
and a dozen others are all conspiring to kill your dogs. Chicken
Little never had it so good.