[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]