# Vitamin K3 (Menadione Sodium Bisulfate)



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Vitamin K3 (menadione sodium bisulfate) in conjunction with Vitamin C is eing studied for its anti cancer effects.


----------



## missmarstar (Jul 22, 2007)

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.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

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.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> 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.


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

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)__. _
​


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> 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 ?
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> 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?


----------



## sharlin (Feb 26, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> 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.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

sharlin said:


> 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.



sharlin said:


> 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.



sharlin said:


> 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.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> 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.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MyBentley said:


> 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.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

MyBentley said:


> 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.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> 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.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> 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 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.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> 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.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MyBentley said:


> 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.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

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.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> 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.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MyBentley said:


> 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.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MyBentley said:


> Please see my post #18. It's not about any of us laying claim to any specific levels of scientific expertise.


Then don't talk down to me as if I'd come around to your way of thinking if I were better educated.



MyBentley said:


> 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.


I agree completely with you here.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MyBentley said:


> I always find it odd when I see a Purina product and IAMS being referenced as the same.


I did not do so. I gave them as two examples of mainstream foods, not as identical foods.



MyBentley said:


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


My only real problem is when essentially or probably harmless things are red flagged, since it distracts from the real evidence of what's good for dogs.


----------



## missmarstar (Jul 22, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> 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.



Well since I was the other poster besides T&T, I guess I'll respond. I don't understand how me saying that I don't feel comfortable feeding my dogs something that is banned for human consumption is counter productive at all. It's simply MY comfort level with what I feed my dogs. There is room in the discussion for differing opinions, not sure why you are out to prove that yours is the only correct one.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

missmarstar said:


> Well since I was the other poster besides T&T, I guess I'll respond. I don't understand how me saying that I don't feel comfortable feeding my dogs something that is banned for human consumption is counter productive at all. It's simply MY comfort level with what I feed my dogs. There is room in the discussion for differing opinions, not sure why you are out to prove that yours is the only correct one.


It's not banned for human consumption. It's banned for use as a Vitamin K supplement.

Comfort level is one thing. It's quite another when people suggest links to health consequences that are found nowhere in the scientific literature.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




It should be satisfying to you that no poster in this thread alluded to, named or linked to dog food website until you did in this post.

In the thread from which this thread is an offshoot: http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/showthread.php?t=72106
only two posters alluded to, referenced or linked to a dog food website:
Pointgold in post #28 with a link
Pointgold in post #29
Tippykayak (you) in post #36 naming a specific dog food website


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MyBentley said:


> [/B]
> 
> It should be satisfying to you that no poster in this thread alluded to, named or linked to dog food website until you did in this post.
> 
> ...


Are you telling me you learned about menadione elsewhere? When all the unsubstantiated claims that got made it about it in this thread are identical to those found on dog food websites?

Also, here's the FDA's actual statement on Vitamin K and its precursors.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> *Are you telling me you learned about menadione elsewhere?* When all the unsubstantiated claims that got made it about it in this thread are identical to those found on dog food websites?
> 
> Also, here's the FDA's actual statement on Vitamin K and its precursors.


Yes, I am.

When I first moved to Portland I lived within a mile of of Dr. Linus Pauling's boyhood home on Hawthorne Blvd. in Portland and I discovered it on a walk one day. It has been preserved and is variously known as the Linus Pauling Center of Science, Peace and Health or the Institute for Science, Engineering and Public Policy. Lectures and seminars were frequently held there and literature was available.

Dr. Pauling had a long association with Oregon State University, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and is credited by some people as having laid the foundation for modern molecular biology. He was an interesting individual in general.

Anyway, I found a lot of his material interesting, and yes vitamins such as K1, K2 and K3 are referenced by him. So my interest in nutrition really stemmed from a human standpoint at first and then segued into canine health and nutrition. I don't pretend to have a firm grasp of everything he wrote about, but it is thought-provoking.

Of course, like you and many other people on this board, I've come across myriad other sources (including the dog food websites you reference) of nutrition, canine and human, which have varying levels of credence.

It's unrealistic to think that we posters on a dog forum should have to site the timeline and source of everything we've read or heard on a specific subject to be credible as a poster.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MyBentley said:


> It's unrealistic to think that we posters on a dog forum should have to site the timeline and source of everything we've read or heard on a specific subject to be credible as a poster.


Of course, not at all. Sorry. I made an assumption, since menadione is one of the common villains on dog food websites. I do apologize.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Of course, not at all. Sorry. I made an assumption, since menadione is one of the common villains on dog food websites. I do apologize.


Apology accepted.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> ... 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.


It's all about raising awareness, letting others decide for themselves, and respecting their decision. 
Nothing "destructive" there.
A concerned pet owner will do their own research, like you & I have, and draw their own conclusion, like you & I have. 
Coming to different conclusions doesn't make you or I a better or worse pet owner.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> It's all about raising awareness, letting others decide for themselves, and respecting their decision.
> Nothing "destructive" there.
> A concerned pet owner will do their own research, like you & I have, and draw their own conclusion, like you & I have.
> Coming to different conclusions doesn't make you or I a better or worse pet owner.


It's no comment on you as a pet owner, but I simply need to object when people throw around health consequences that are unproven, especially the "c" word. It's one thing to share information. It's another to jump to conclusions that have the power to do harm of their own.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> It's no comment on you as a pet owner, but I simply need to object when people throw around health consequences that are unproven, especially the "c" word. It's one thing to share information. It's another to jump to conclusions that have the power to do harm of their own.


My comments & ACF link was in reply to your post about how pets are thriving in the "real world"
It's just one of too many links, of too many diseases, affecting our pets at an alarming rate.

And yes I question the pet food industry.
A pet food company using BHA, BHT, ethoxyquin, vitamin K3 menadione sodium bisulfate, colors 2, 5, 6, etc in their line of products DOES make me wonder about their philosophy ... 
Wish they'd put some of the millions $ they spend on advertising/marketing ... towards non toxic & less controversial ingredients.
So I choose to turn elsewhere.

In regards to vitamin K3 menadione sodium bisulfate & in reply to your posts

[QUOTE 
There are lots of substances that are essentially harmless in small quantities but cause organ damage in massive quantities. Water's one of 'em.

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? 
QUOTE]

You're comparing vitamin K3 menadione sodium bisulfate, a substance banned for human consumption, to substances not banned.
Maybe Swampcollie's bio-chemist friend can explain why exactly this particular substance was banned. 

And, no, MSB is NOT necessary in dog foods.
Or maybe you meant vitamin K ?
As far as I know, vitamin K is not on AAFCO's list of required nutrients.
So I have NO idea why some pet food companies would want to use this controversial chemical.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

T&T said:


> My comments & ACF link was in reply to your post about how pets are thriving in the "real world"
> It's just one of too many links, of too many diseases, affecting our pets at an alarming rate.
> 
> And yes I question the pet food industry.
> ...




You are correct in that the 2008 AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles, Vitamin K of any type is not listed. It is generally thought that Vitamin K can be synthesized by bacteria in the dog's intestine and doesn't need to be added to the diet under normal conditions.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> You're comparing vitamin K3 menadione sodium bisulfate, a substance banned for human consumption, to substances not banned.
> Maybe Swampcollie's bio-chemist friend can explain why exactly this particular substance was banned.


Yes, sorry, I wasn't careful to clarify. But, in a full-meat diet, how does a dog get any Vitamin K?

Also, K3 is banned for use as a supplement because you can overdose on it, while you can't overdose on K1 or K2. The FDA is very clear that the substance has no ill effects as a micronutrient.



T&T said:


> So I have NO idea why some pet food companies would want to use this controversial chemical.


Because it's cheap and there's no reason to think it could harm an animal in the small doses used, while there is reason to think it has positive health outcomes in those small doses.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MyBentley said:


> You are correct in that the 2008 AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles, Vitamin K of any type is not listed. It is generally thought that Vitamin K can be synthesized by bacteria in the dog's intestine and doesn't need to be added to the diet under normal conditions.


It is generally thought? By whom?


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> It is generally thought? By whom?


A couple of suggestions:

UC Davis Book of Dogs (written by faculty at their vet school)

Dog Owner's Home Veterinary Handbook (written by vets)

R Bowen, a DVM and PhD at Colorado State

I think people will be able to track down numerous sources and references if they care to look further.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> Yes, sorry, I wasn't careful to clarify. But, in a full-meat diet, how does a dog get any Vitamin K?QUOTE]
> Sorry for not replying ...
> Thought you read the FDA link you posted earlier ...
> [QUOTE" here's the FDA's actual statement "QUOTE]
> ...


 Any scientific long term studies/research on repeated use to back that statement ?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> Any scientific long term studies/research on repeated use to back that statement ?


It's well known as a vitamin K precursor, and once converted to K2 or K1, has all of the benefits of those substances. The FDA link I posted earlier is very clear on this subject. According to the FDA, studies as early as 1987 confirm that menadione can be safely consumed at levels "as high as 1,000 times the dietary requirement without seeing any adverse effects in animals, except in horses."


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> It's well known as a vitamin K precursor, and once converted to K2 or K1, has all of the benefits of those substances. The FDA link I posted earlier is very clear on this subject. According to the FDA, studies as early as 1987 confirm that menadione can be safely consumed at levels "as high as 1,000 times the dietary requirement without seeing any adverse effects in animals, except in horses."


Tested on what species and for how long ...
Yes mostly used in chicken, turkey & swine feed ... but for a very short time ... until ready for slaughter for human feed.

Interesting how they put it ...
" Poultry, such as broiler chickens and turkeys, are more likely to develop signs of vitamin K deficiency than other species of animals, which can be attributed to their short digestive tract and the fast rate of food passage... " 
Must be referring to those fed diets formulated by humans ... doubt very much it's an oversight by Nature.

Not much more I can add other than ... 
Not for me, thanks.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> Tested on what species and for how long ...


I don't care to sort out the data, but chickens have been eating it for fifty years and dogs have been eating it for quite some time.



T&T said:


> Yes mostly used in chicken, turkey & swine feed ... but for a very short time ... until ready for slaughter for human feed.
> 
> Interesting how they put it ...
> " Poultry, such as broiler chickens and turkeys, are more likely to develop signs of vitamin K deficiency than other species of animals, which can be attributed to their short digestive tract and the fast rate of food passage... "
> Must be referring to those fed diets formulated by humans ... doubt very much it's an oversight by Nature.


Actually, the poultry used by the food industry bear no resemblance to any animal that can survive in the wild. They grow far, far faster than any wild animal could, and they're bred to survive solely on commercial feed. The "oversight by Nature" argument doesn't really apply here.

There's also no evidence that as a pre-vitamin that it has any ability to build up in the system over time.



T&T said:


> Not much more I can add other than ... Not for me, thanks.


And that's awesome. More power to you. Just stop advising people to avoid something harmless and stop making them feel guilty for not feeding more expensive, less-tested diets. Claiming a substance causes cancer, when there's no evidence that it does, has negative unintended consequences.

Have you demanded this kind of research on the Omega-3 oils consistently added to boutique dog foods?

PS: Your posts are no fun to respond to with all the colors. When I hit "quote" to reply to you, it's a mess of code I have to sort through. Any reason you feel the need to write in giant blue letters?


----------



## sharlin (Feb 26, 2007)

T&T - you do realize there have been no scientific studies or reports that substantiate the use of different colors and fonts make for a more pleasurable reading experience don't you? And your willingness to make sure consumers should be allowed to know all the facts prior to purchasing a product is obviously anarchy at it's worse. 

Jeeeez


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

sharlin said:


> T&T - you do realize there have been no scientific studies or reports that substantiate the use of different colors and fonts make for a more pleasurable reading experience don't you? And your willingness to make sure consumers should be allowed to know all the facts prior to purchasing a product is obviously anarchy at it's worse.
> 
> Jeeeez


Well, that's kind of mean spirited, eh? I assume you're mocking me, not T&T, though it's not really that clear in the middle, since it's T&T who keeps asking for studies.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

sharlin said:


> T&T - you do realize there have been no scientific studies or reports that substantiate the use of different colors and fonts make for a more pleasurable reading experience don't you? And your willingness to make sure consumers should be allowed to know all the facts prior to purchasing a product is obviously anarchy at it's worse.
> 
> Jeeeez


And now that I've had a chance to think it over, what "facts" are we trying to hide here? It's rumor, myth, and insinuation that I'm speaking out against. Do you care that people incorrectly claimed this substance causes cancer? And that people who don't have time to read through all of this crap routinely log onto this forum and apologize for feeding their dogs perfectly good foods?

Or that this substance has never been linked to negative health effects except in overdose amounts? No, of course not. I'm the jerk, I forgot.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

sharlin said:


> T&T - you do realize there have been no scientific studies or reports that substantiate the use of different colors and fonts make for a more pleasurable reading experience don't you? And your willingness to make sure consumers should be allowed to know all the facts prior to purchasing a product is obviously anarchy at it's worse.
> 
> Jeeeez


Wow ... you're one brave member ...
Hope you put on a helmet before posting ...
Notice how many knowledgeable members no longer participate in food debates ? ... 
Smiley for you


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> Notice how many knowledgeable members no longer participate in food debates ? ...


Seriously. You guys get really mean when people disagree.


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

Time to close this thread as it no longer is looked at as being productive.


----------

