[FML COMMENT]: Bob wrote
>I believe there is a statistical correlation between consuming starch
>filled food and insulinoma in ferrets, but I cannot predict which ferret
>will or will not contract pancreatic disease....If one causes a problem
>in 50% of a population and the other in 65%, THEY ARE BOTH STILL BAD!
>It's like arguing one bullet makes a smaller hole as it rips through your
>heart.
 
I agree with your first premise, but diagree with your conclusion.  If you
can reduce disease by 23% [(65-15)/65] simply by changing one ingredient,
that is a very big deal and great improvement."
 
A: If pigs could fly I would always carry an umbrella.
 
So, it is ok for 50% of ferrets to get insulinoma so long as we save 23% of
them by switching to a less toxic carbohydrate?  That doesn't sound quite
right to me.  But in any case, the point is moot because we don't KNOW if
the difference is 23%, do we?  I simply made up those numbers as an
example.  What if the real difference is only 5%, not 23%?  What if there
is no long term difference?  Eliminating the CAUSE of the disease would
save all of them.  Still even THIS argument is getting bogged down in
minutia.  Why?  Because we have forgotten what we are actually debating;
does carbohydrates cause pancreatic disease in ferrets?
 
There is one small point I want to illuminate.  By arguing a reduction of
23% makes one carbohydrate somehow better than other is dangerous when it
still leaves 50% of a population suffering disease.  A 50% disease rate
would be horrific.  To put it in perspective, suppose we were talking
about heartworm.  Would it be ok for 50% of your ferrets to suffer from
heartworm?  Of course not!  Especially if you learned about a preventative
medicine which eliminated the problem.  If we can eliminate the problem,
who cares if we can reduce it by a small amount?
 
[FML COMMENT]: Bob wrote
>First you have to prove the link, THEN figure which ones are better than
>others.
 
To use your smoking analogy, for DECADES, the tobacco industry denied the
link between smoking and cancer had been proven.  Does that mean they were
justified in continuing to push their unregulated poison on us?  Even if
the link was unproven, there was sufficient evidence to warrant concern,
and therefore sufficient reason to look for ways to reduce exposure
(including more regulation) and the risk of disease."
 
A: So explain why smoking is on the rise in young adults if it has proven
   links to disease.
 
I believe the important question is if carbohydrates actually cause
pancreatic disease, not which carbohydrate is safer.  This question is so
filled with unsubstantiated positions, theory and unproven causal links
that everyone seems to be forgetting that nobody knows anything for sure.
*I* believe it, based on data extrapolated from other species, careful
study of the matter and strength of scientific argument.  BUT I have NEVER
implied that I actually had supportable facts; I have always made it clear
that more research was needed.
 
Back to the smoking analogy, people begin smoking for a lot of reasons, but
in the end they continue to smoke for one: addiction.  So, why use kibble
if you think it might cause pancreatic disease?  Because of a different
type of "addiction;" the addiction to a product gives all the benefit to
the human consumer at the risk of harm to the ferret.  The ferret owner
loves the low odor of kibbled foods, it can be left in food dishes all day
long, it is cheap and it insures dietary requirements are met.  Those are
good things.  So who cares if the occasional ferret develops pancreatic
disease?  The argument that kibbled food might cause 50% pancreatic disease
in ferrets, but at least we can save 23% by switching carbohydrates is an
argument of addiction.  We care about our ferrets, but we like the benefits
of kibble more.  Think about it; exactly WHY do people want to keep using
kibbled foods?
 
Look at it this way (back to the smoking analogy).  Filtered cigarettes
were introduced just when the research was showing smoking was a health
hazard.  Because the implication that a filtered cigarette was safer, a
lot of smokers who might have quit smoking simply switched to filtered
cigarettes.  However, in the last few years, it is clear filtered
cigarettes give NO health benefits because smokers simply do more puffing
and inhale deeper.  The end result is that because filtered cigarettes were
presented as being safer, a lot of people who might have quit, didn't, and
got sick as a result.  My worry is that the argument about carbohydrates,
in the absence of real data, might make some people think all we have to do
is switch from one carbohydrate to another and everything will be ok again.
We don't know that anymore than if carbohydrates ACTUALLY cause disease.
The bottom line is, if we don't know if there is a causal link between
carbohydrates and insulinomas, how the hell can we argue if one
carbohydrate is better than another?
 
Bob C and 16 Mo' Chicken Inhaling Ferts
[Posted in FML issue 3014]