Quote:You may believe PETA and this organization, but my experience is that they are not reliable sources of information. From the link you provided "PETA continues to press Iams to ban conducting and funding invasive or terminal experiments on all species and to adopt 100 percent humane, non-invasive, and cage-free "in-home" testing, as many of Iams' compassionate competitors have done."
I am glad if IAMS has not signed up to some PETA supported "good citizenship" list and glad that PETA "inspections" are rejected. PETA has no real concern for animals, as is demonstrated by the manner in which they killed and disposed of cats put in their care. They believe all animals should be "free," which means feral and are otherwise better off dead.
Here is the level of "charges":"Footage shows that Iams representatives toured the facility and witnessed dogs who were circling in their cells and sweltering in the summer heat." What is that?! On a hot day dogs "circled." This is proof of cruelty. Is the idea that all dogs require AC? Does that mean pet owners cannot let their dogs out in the yard on a hot day - if they circle the yard?
These are the nut fringe.
Although testing is not illegal, the USDA did file a complaint against Iams' labratory on Oct 6, 2006, stating, among other things, that they "violated the Animal Welfare Act ;
http://www.iamscruelty.com/pdfs/USDA_Sinclair_Labs1.pdf
Sinclair labs was not an IAMS or P&G facility. (Note that they call it "Iams' laboratory" even though it is not. The cited "fact" that these folks rely upon to claim IAMS knowledge of conditions is the one I quoted on it being too hot. I cannot find a SINGLE reference to IAMS or P&G in the USDA complaint about Sinclair you linked.
Quote:Sinclair labs was not an IAMS or P&G facility. (Note that they call it "Iams' laboratory" even though it is not. The cited "fact" that these folks rely upon to claim IAMS knowledge of conditions is the one I quoted on it being too hot. I cannot find a SINGLE reference to IAMS or P&G in the USDA complaint about Sinclair you linked.
Sited from;
http://www.iamscruelty.com/introduction.asp
For nearly 10 months in 2002 and early 2003,
a PETA investigator worked undercover at Sinclair Research Center, a laboratory hired by Iams, and discovered a dark and sordid secret beneath the wholesome image of the dog- and cat-food manufacturer. Dogs had gone crazy because they were confined to barren steel cages and cement cells, dogs were left piled on a filthy paint-chipped floor after chunks of muscle had been hacked from their thighs, dogs were surgically debarked, and horribly sick dogs and cats were neglected and left in cages to suffer without any veterinary care.
Footage shows that
Iams representatives toured the facility and witnessed dogs who were circling in their cells and sweltering in the summer heat. Iams knew the truth yet did nothing to protect the animals.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture investigated PETA's complaint and agreed that the laboratory had failed to provide veterinary care and pain relief to suffering animals, failed to provide animals with adequate space, and failed to train employees—along with nearly 40 other violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act. Sinclair Research Center paid a penalty of $33,000 for its violations.
After intense pressure from PETA and its supporters, Iams agreed to make the following significant changes in its testing program......
Readers have the ablity to google; animal cruelty, animal testing ect... and make their owners decisions.
Well I tried to feed raw to my cats... My birman hates it with a passion. He will accept lamb meat from time to time (like a piece every month). My ragdoll eats some but still wants and expects his canned and dry food. They are no warnings about the quality of meat in France, at least not where I live. A lot of people eat their meat rare here... I suppose there are also risks. Diwan being allergic to beef and veal, I'm only left with chicken and lamb as he hates turkey and duck.
As for PETA, I love animals and would do a lot to defend them, but those people are going too far lately. I like it when you can discuss with people, not when they try to brainwash you and belittle you simply because you don't agree with them on everything.
Rabbit is a nice choice also Cornish hens and I am sure most butchers’ in France sell this besides supermarkets.
As for PETA, I am not a member nor a supporter of this group and would never try to brainwash anyone. I simply wanted to inform who ever was interested that IAMS does not have a good track record when it comes to the treatment of the animals in their charge. I am not a doctor nor a medical scientist but hope to believe a company who supplies pet food to the general public is testing their food for results regarding taste, improvement or lack of; health, weight, coat of cats and dogs.
Quote:Here is the level of "charges":"Footage shows that Iams representatives toured the facility and witnessed dogs who were circling in their cells and sweltering in the summer heat." What is that?! On a hot day dogs "circled." This is proof of cruelty. Is the idea that all dogs require AC? Does that mean pet owners cannot let their dogs out in the yard on a hot day - if they circle the yard?
IAMS makes tons of money from their products, don’t ya think they could invest a bit into better living conditions, adequate workers to properly maintain the cats and dogs.
Check what we all consider a good breeder, would you tolerate this behavior from them, I think not.
Diane, how do they know what IAMS discovered and what they did about it? They complain about IAMS non-cooperation with them, but do not cite any source for this information that I read, USDA or otherwise.
One of the problems of these extremist groups is that they push animal research that needs to be done out of universities and large company labs into less responsible companies and labs that may have inadequate training and dirty conditions, as Sinclair seems to have had at some facilities.
Read the charges in the complaint and compare those to the charges of PETA, et al. In fact, in the context of FEEDING raw food with dangerous microbes, note the complaint at 28 about the presence of rodent feces. I guess for some folks it is OK to feed your cat e coli, but do not let mouse droppings in the room with the research animals. I would think that this was proof that the cats had access to the perfect and most natural meals - live mice.
And, yes, I think an IAMS lab would have had better conditions.
Quote:Diane, how do they know what IAMS discovered and what they did about it? They complain about IAMS non-cooperation with them, but do not cite any source for this information that I read, USDA or otherwise.
One of the problems of these extremist groups is that they push animal research that needs to be done out of universities and large company labs into less responsible companies and labs that may have inadequate training and dirty conditions, as Sinclair seems to have had at some facilities.
Read the charges in the complaint and compare those to the charges of PETA, et al. In fact, in the context of FEEDING raw food with dangerous microbes, note the complaint at 28 about the presence of rodent feces. I guess for some folks it is OK to feed your cat e coli, but do not let mouse droppings in the room with the research animals. I would think that this was proof that the cats had access to the perfect and most natural meals - live mice.
And, yes, I think an IAMS lab would have had better conditions.
Non-invasive, nonlethal, and cage-free "in-home" testing is one answer to your question.
Honestly Jan you strike me as resourceful person, read is my best advice if you are interested in more information. I have already posted enough links to get you or any one else who cares started.
I understand that testing is necessary on many products. However that is not an excuse for cruel or inhumane treatment of animals. Even if a company did not have a direct hand in the abuse, looking the other way and supporting these facilities is equally disgusting. I for one could not knowingly support a company involved in animal cruelty in any way.
But some research requires other techniques, including invasive ones. In addition, in home "research" has the major risk of having very uneven implementation compared to work done in a lab with trained personnel.
As for your citations, that is what my comments have been about. I have read them.
vickymars Wrote:I understand that testing is necessary on many products. However that is not an excuse for cruel or inhumane treatment of animals. Even if a company did not have a direct hand in the abuse, looking the other way and supporting these facilities is equally disgusting. I for one could not knowingly support a company involved in animal cruelty in any way.
These were federally licensed and inspected facilities. It is not even clear that their license was suspended as an outcome of this inspection and complaint - and even that is removed from IAMS, for whom there is nothing I have seen indicating they "looked the other way." I am not sure that not keeping the pigs hooves clipped reaches the level of cruel and inhumane treatment (and how many folks here who have cats whose claws are not clipped all the time). Based on my memories of my grandfather's farm, I am not sure that unpleasant odors rise to the level of inhumane or cruel either. Likewise for record keeping, training of personnel and even keeping vaccinations current. These may well be things that need correction, but seem a far distance from inhumane and cruel and even that is some distance from IAMS, the only allegation against them seeming to be funding research conducted at some facility of this multi facility organization.
As one of the many millions who feeds IAMS products, my concern is that these kind of charges will induce them to do LESS research than I would prefer not that I should avoid them based on these allegations. IAMS has no reason to undertake the expense and risk of testing that is not needed to provide a safe and effective product. They are not looking for places to waste money or ways, directly or indirectly, to abuse animals.
This is about these folks getting media attention. If they attack Sinclair, then they get perhaps two minutes of media attention locally. If they attack IAMS, and even more so P&G, based on providing funding for some project of undisclosed scope and undisclosed total funding at Sinclair, then they get more attention. Does this mean that when you buy a CD at Walmart you are responsible for all of Walmart's actions, known and unknown to you, even as they apply to CDs, particularly if Walmart's CD business were Federally licensed and inspected?