Measurement / residue studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked A-FSH-17 standard review
Feed preservatives in farmed fish
Levels of synthetic antioxidants (ethoxyquin, butylated hydroxytoluene and butylated hydroxyanisole) in fish feed and commercially farmed fish.
Overview
Lundebye AK et al.. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess 2010 · PMID 20931417 · DOI 10.1080/19440049.2010.508195
A portion of farmed salmon gave up to 75% of the acceptable daily intake of BHT.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Measure antioxidants.
- How was the study done?
Lab analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Norwegian farmed fish.
- What was actually found?
Below ADI per portion.
- How large was the observed effect?
BHT up to 75% ADI.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Within limits.
- What are the study's limitations?
2010 data.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Weak support.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Harm.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Lundebye AK, Hove H, Måge A, Bohne VJ, Hamre K
- Journal
- Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess
- Year
- 2010
- Identifier
- PMID 20931417 DOI 10.1080/19440049.2010.508195
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract/record
2. Research question
Levels of ethoxyquin, BHT, BHA in farmed fish?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Measurement / residue study – Measurement of synthetic antioxidants in feed and farmed fish fillets with exposure estimate
- Population
Farmed salmon, halibut, cod, rainbow trout; feed
- Country
Norway
- Period
published 2010
- Sample size
not stated
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Farmed species
- Comparator
ADI
- Endpoints
Concentrations; % ADI
5. Actual results
- Results
Highest in salmon: BHT 7.60, EQ 0.17, BHA 0.07 mg/kg; EQ dimer >10x parent; 300 g portion: EQ <= 15% ADI, BHT up to 75% ADI (60 kg adult).
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Exposure calculated; no exceedance of ADI from one portion.
6. Strengths
- Exposure vs ADI
7. Weaknesses
- 2010 data
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- low
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Context for C-FSH-02.
11. Independent contrary findings
Itself (below ADI).
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High (Norway).
13. Overall methodological judgement
Shows exposures within ADI.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | low |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | unknown |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Ethoxyquin dimer toxicology.
15. Linked fact checks
- Farmed fish today accumulate PCBs, dioxins and PBDEs at concentrations significantly higher than in their wild counterparts (present-tense generalisation in the archive summary). – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Bibliography only.
- A. What was actually studied?
Feed antioxidants.
- B. What did the authors find?
Below ADI per portion.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
As found.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Implied additional contaminant.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Archive does not mention that intakes were below ADI.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable