OMG why did I open that? :'(
"Each is a creature of Earth and is entitled to reside on it with dignity"
It was, and maybe still is, very disturbing as I was reading. Then I got to this statement,
'For nearly 10 months in 2002 and early 2003, a PETA investigator went undercover'
I have no idea how much truth is included on the whole page. I don't trust PETA to present facts without something between distortion and outright lies.
Hershey Kisses, In charge of getting Ed out to the dog park so that he gets some exercise.
I'm no PETA fan either Ed, but this video is disturbing. they can't make that up. :'(
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video....iams&Player=qt (WARNING - disturbing and upsetting footage)
Baloo - 5 year old black lab
Peanut - 7 year old minpin
Monster - 3-ish year old frenchie/jack, rescue
That's old. Here's Iams' response back when it first came out.
Thank you very much for taking the time to forward the link to this horrible web
site. It positively sickens me, and is a gross misrepresentation of The Iams
Company and the research we have conducted! We sincerely appreciate loyal
customers like you who make the effort to investigate the truth about these
horrible accusations. Uncaged Campaigns is an animal rights group in the UK
that has connections with a tabloid in London that "broke" this story on Sunday.
Here is our official response:
An article published by a British tabloid newspaper (Sunday
Express, "Pet Food Cruelty," May 27) contained inaccurate and misleading
information about Iams nutritional studies. The Iams Company is appalled by
these false allegations of animal cruelty.
More than two years ago - well before our acquisition by Procter
& Gamble (P&G) - The Iams Company independently made a firm and binding decision
that we would not consider or sponsor any studies that required the euthanasia
of dogs and cats. We determined that we could continue to make crucial health
advancements without such studies because certain key findings had already been
made, and new alternative research methods had been developed (for example,
advances in MRI technology can now be used to examine the condition of bones and
joints without using invasive procedures).
Early in our efforts to develop nutritional innovations, we
sponsored university and veterinary school research in North America that
identified important questions. The answers to those questions could
potentially save and enhance the lives of millions of dogs and cats, but could
only be determined through studies requiring euthanasia. We exhausted all other
alternatives and made choiceful decisions in our research methodology. In those
few instances, researchers used the minimum number of animals possible, and the
results have benefited dogs and cats world-wide.
For example, our studies of canine and feline kidney disease - a
chronic and fatal illness affecting millions of pets - resulted in new renal
diets that make a significant difference in the lives of dogs and cats with
chronic renal failure. Our research into healthy skeletal development has made
a big difference for large breed dogs, where painful and debilitating
developmental bone problems can occur in up to 40% of puppies.
Despite these facts, the story in the Sunday Express portrayed
our published research findings in a sensational, negative, and misleading way.
The article repeatedly described ordinary veterinary health practices in
unnecessarily horrific terms. For example:
* A skin biopsy - which is a common diagnostic test in both human and
veterinary medicine - was described in the article as "giving the animal chest
* Giving an animal a routine vaccination was described as "injecting with
live virus vaccines."
Clearly, this type of language is deceptive and
Other leading pet food companies sponsor or have sponsored
similar studies to those undertaken by our company. Unlike most of our
competitors, Iams openly presents and publishes our findings (for example,
veterinary conferences, peer-reviewed veterinary journals) so that other
researchers can help improve the health and well-being of dogs and cats, without
repeating research projects.
This raises an important question: If our research has been
presented, published and part of public record for more than ten years - and if
other leading pet food companies sponsor similar studies -- why was The Iams
Company singled out now?
To answer that question, it is important to consider the source
of the allegations: This story appears to have been sparked by Uncaged
Campaigns, a UK-based animal activist organization that has long called for
boycotts of P&G products.
To sum up, our research efforts have always been guided by a
strict code of ethics that exceeds the highest standards established by the
Animal Welfare Act of the US and the US Department of Agriculture. Today, and
in the past, all of our feeding studies have been required to meet very specific
* The care of animals is of paramount importance, and animal well-being is
always our top priority.
* The results must help veterinarians and pet owners nutritionally manage
important pet health conditions and give real benefits to dogs and cats
* The studies must be unique, relevant, and truly pioneering - in other
words, no existing research could answer the questions raised.
At Iams, we stand behind our research, and are proud of our
55-year track record of enhancing the well-being of dogs and cats by providing
world-class quality foods. That is our mission, one that we live by every day
in every corner of the company, starting with our Research and Development.
The negative Iams information that is flowing through the Internet right now is
a distorted view of our research. Unfortunately, this type of sensationalism is
at the expense of a company made up of people that are passionate about their
dogs and cats, as well as their company's mission (to enhance the well being of
dogs and cats by providing world-class, quality foods). I wish I could share
with you all the thousands of contacts we've had from dog and cat owners
reporting on the impact our foods have had on their pets' health. My own dog
has experienced terrible allergies that were greatly soothed by feeding her a
Eukanuba Veterinary Diet.
We are truly grateful for the long-term loyalty you have shown Iams Cat Foods.
We hope that we have been helpful in addressing your concerns, but if you have
additional questions, please call us at 800-863-4267 or contact us anytime
through our "Talk to Us" page at www.iams.com .
Bev, Consumer Relations
The Iams Company
♣ Laura ♣
You know, I can never figure out how on earth people think that most of this stuff is true based on the fact that in order for an accurate study to occur (especially in a long-term food trial situation), research animals *have* to be kept happy and healthy (unless you're trying to "cure" or "improve" a disease through the use of diet). Otherwise, your results would get completely skewed. It would be absolutely inaccurate to have loads of stressed out, overcrowded animals living in their own excrement because they would be going through stress-related changes (like release of cortisol into their systems) which would make their bloodwork values and physical exam findings inaccurate for the study being done.
Plus, with the development of the Animal Welfare Act and all of the guidelines for lab animal use/husbandry/care, there are VERY strict guidelines that have to be followed.
I guess you would have to have experience in science to know that, though...
PETA? No comment.
~Julie, Rogue, Monty, and Eddy~
"The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue." -Anon
I saw the PETA part and immediately discounted this as BS!
My pretty girl, Lexi!
Iams should be boycotted if not for cruelty then for a bad product if nothing else.
I doubt the truthfulness of the website.
I know universities have strict guidelines for the humane care and treatment of any laboratory animals used in research under their aegis.
Hill's Science Diet's home office is in Topeka and 2 of our LabFest members work at Hill's. One has an AKC Lab given to him as a puppy with the provision that he be fed nothing but the experimental food Hill's supplies in unmarked, unlabelled bags. This is to periodically assess the effects of the food on dogs raised in normal family circumstances. Procedures like this have been used for scores of years.
E.g., Scott & Fuller, in their classic "Genetics & the Social Behavior of Dogs", had many of their 5 breeds of dogs raised in the families of their research employees. And that was over 50 years ago.
Puff [YF, AKC field line (from competing HT/FT breeder) 62 lbs, dob: 8-'01]
Bess [BF, AKC bench line (from competing show breeder) 55 lbs., 1967-1981] "Poor Bess, the Wonder Dog":
What bad product? I know a lot of people who feed their food and like the results. What's so bad about that?Originally Posted by MrDogLover
♣ Laura ♣