Iams

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

So sorry to hear your views...obviously we can continue to to and fro on this, or we can decide the issue for ourselves. I choose to educate myself to the horrors that continue in so-called humane societies and if others choose not to, then so be it.

I continue to feel very saddened that someone that rescues dogs from death row thinks it is acceptable to test on dogs at all. But each to their own, I suppose. A dog spending the majority of its life in a tiny kennel with minimal interaction cannot compare to a dog that is well-loved living in a family apartment. But why would you draw sensible parallels when you can draw a more extreme one? I really make the effort to bring balance to such arguments and then others simply go over the top in trying to counter what I know. I think I've said enough on the subject in this thread.

I'm opposed to testing on animals in laboratory conditions. That's my position. It's not necessary and not humane, IMO.

ETA: Which brands of foods do you feed your rescues, and how are your supplies of foods obtained? Do you purchase them or have them donated or both? Perhaps this is what is colouring your judgement? Please feel free to ignore the questions if you'd prefer. I'm only asking out of curiosity... :rolleyes:

Edited January 23, 2006 by lillysmum

[White Shepherd mom]

I don't know who is right here - I have previously read about the horrific IAMS experiments and I have also read that those practises are old and not followed any more.

In truth, how do you know what dog food is premium? Which ones are good for a dog's teeth, joints, organs unless some kind of tests were performed? I do not support invasive or cruel tests and where possible only use cruelty-free cosmetics. However, as I have read that the IAMS old forms of testing are a thing of the past, I am happy to feed it to my dog as it is the only food I have found that keeps his stomach solid and the gassy smells to a minimum. If and when I find evidence to the contrary, I will look for a brand that does not test.

My only thing against IAMS is that is made by Procter and Gamble so I will be keeping my eyes and ears open.

[Cordelia]

ETA: Which brands of foods do you feed your rescues, and how are your supplies of foods obtained? Do you purchase them or have them donated or both? Perhaps this is what is colouring your judgement? Please feel free to ignore the questions if you'd prefer. I'm only asking out of curiosity... 

My views are not based on what I feed my dogs as they are ALL on a BARF diet because they do better on that than commercial food. The less squishy poos here, the better as no one dry food will suit every dog (and BARF does here anyway).

My chicken mince is obtained fresh from an abattoir and the vegies are obtained fresh from the Fruit shop up the road. My dry food (very small amount) is donated by The Great Aussie Pet Food Company. The actual food is Maxi Pup (no colours, flavours or preservatives). Bones are obtained from my local butcher.

Hope your curiosity is satisfied.

[Pup's mum]

From your own website (bottom of the page):

http://www.cordysrescue.com/?Acknowledgements

still no colouring of your judgement?

Edited January 23, 2006 by Pup's mum

[Rusky]

IF WE DON'T SPEAK UP FOR THOSE WHO CAN NOT........ WHO WILL????

Cordilia you have this as your signature, I will answer you.. I will speak up for those who can't. I guess we will agree to disagree. I don't waste time trying to convert those who have already made up their minds, no point.

I do think it is a low slung shot to show that 6 months of Iams and suggest that clouded Cordelias judgement.

If I were an independant rescue I would take what I could for the dogs from wherever I could. I wouldn't give a rats if Codelia fed all her dogs on Iams for free for ever, the two are completely separate.

[Cordelia]

Oh Hello Pup's Mum, nice to see you popping your head in here. :rolleyes:

From your own website (bottom of the page):

http://www.cordysrescue.com/?Acknowledgements

still no colouring of your judgement?

Nope. I used to work for them too you know.

If my judgement was so clouded, I would still be feeding it (if I could afford it) instead of having my guys on BARF which is better all round.

However, thank you for reading my site so thoroughly. It's nice to see folks taking such a dedicated interest in my Rescue.

If I were an independant rescue I would take what I could for the dogs from wherever I could. I wouldn't give a rats if Codelia fed all her dogs on Iams for free for ever, the two are completely separate.

Thank you Rusky.

Agree to disagree on the subject of certain aspects of animal testing as our experiences and perceptions vary greatly.

[Tacoheki]

I know this is going to make me sound completely clueless...but wouldnt all dog foods, no matter who makes it, have to be tested on dogs before they are put on the market? If they didnt, how would they be able to make claims about how good it is, how shiny the dogs coat will be etc?

[Cordelia]

At some point during production........ yes phoenix. It's called being able to prove "Quality Assurance" via appropriate research.

[Tacoheki]

And also, if they didnt test the product first, and released it, wouldnt that still be testing on dogs? Albeit not "lab dogs" but peoples pets? And I'm sure everyone who is against animal testing would kick up a stink if their dog had an adverse reaction to an untested product. Surely they would prefer to ensure they are feeding a "safe" product that has been tested?

[BasTyra]

What are they actually adding to petfood that makes it so necessary to have such stringent testing done?

Is it all the crap they add to make the pets hair shine, breath fresh and all that jazz?

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

As I've said, I have no problem with companies using dog food tests on dogs...it's the HOW they go about it that I have a problem with. Or has that escaped attention...again?

It's not the actual feeding of the foods, it's the conditions under which those tests are conducted.

Yep, I too saw the Iams logo on Cordy's website. But that has no bearing on her view of their animal testing...and she feeds all her dogs on BARF.

OK then.

[Pointers Rule]

Sheesh, came in here thinking I might learn something as I have been told that I am not feeding a premium dry (mind you it is only 1 cup a day). All I have found is people up on their high horses. Might just stick to what I know as I know that it works on my particular dogs.

[Rusky]

Sheesh, came in here thinking I might learn something as I have been told that I am not feeding a premium dry (mind you it is only 1 cup a day). All I have found is people up on their high horses. Might just stick to what I know as I know that it works on my particular dogs.

? I think you might be on the wrong thread maybe.

This is about Iams Eukanuba animal testing not about the quality or requirements of dry food. There is a thread going about that

[Pointers Rule]

Sheesh, came in here thinking I might learn something as I have been told that I am not feeding a premium dry (mind you it is only 1 cup a day).  All I have found is people up on their high horses.  Might just stick to what I know as I know that it works on my particular dogs.

? I think you might be on the wrong thread maybe.

This is about Iams Eukanuba animal testing not about the quality or requirements of dry food. There is a thread going about that

You might be right about that, however the title is a little misleading. Toddling back into my corner now!

[Rusky]

You might be right about that, however the title is a little misleading. Toddling back into my corner now!

[Pup's mum]

moderated

Edited January 24, 2006 by Jim

[Cordelia]

Thank you Jim.

[Greytmate]

I find it hard to believe that companies that make megabucks from selling pet food would not treat their own test animals in a good way. It makes sense that they would look after them properly, it does not make sense that they would do things in a way that was not good for the animals.

We all know that animals are healthiest when they are happy, so testing on poor neglected unhappy animals would not give good test results anyway.

I guess there will always be people that argue about whether individual kennelling of dogs is a good thing (safe for dogs) or a bad thing (boring for dogs).

I am sure that if the dogs were not kennelled individually there would be descriptions of 'dogs crammed in cages together', and 'dog fights occurring'.

One thing I do know, is that there are plenty of bullshit internet sites around, and that animal rights activism is a big business that makes heaps of cash from telling horror stories. In fact, that is the only way that it can stay in business.

Quoting internet stories is not really research. Those that believe the stories that they find on the internet might be causing unneccessary distress to themselves.

I have experienced first hand the dishonest tactics employed by animal rights activists in their attempt to gather 'information'. First they have a 'conclusion', then they scramble around trying to find anything that will prove their claims. Honesty does not come into it.

[Koza]

as far as I remember IAMS contracts a Uni to do the research, as it probably happens with other companies, including those who claim that they do not test on animals. They still use the test results, though...So it's up to the testing facility's authorities to determine the conditions for animals and all ethics isues. Hope they have been revised.

Uni of Qld has some similar research, I dont know for whom. Dogs live in ordinary kennel environment. It's not fun, but not as disgusting as on that video in the net. These dogs have temperament issues, they cant be rehomed.

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

Animal shelters do not kennel dogs individually and continue to keep the dog for the term of its natural life in the shelter/kennel environment. It is widely recognised by behaviourists that any dog forced into living its entire life in a kennel situation is inhumane and to be avoided. However, many of these testing laboratories (not just Iams) do exactly that, and they use the excuse that the dogs are not fit to be rehomed. I have to wonder what came first: the unadoptable dog or the decision to keep it kenneled for experimentation purposes.

While many without first-hand knowledge of such set-ups may find it difficult to believe, these things happen far too frequently and are in fact happening now. I am not one to side with "animal rights" activitists and I find many of their tactics irresponsible to say the least...but I do know of other research and evidence that supports many of the claims and allegations such groups have made public (and others that they were forbidden by legal action to make public).

The bottom line is this: a dog should never spend its entire life shut inside a kennel environment, with the majority of its time spent in isolation from other canines and from human contact, and with minimal time spent outdoors (less than one hour per twenty four hours). If you have a humane bone in your body, then this type of experimentation is outrageous. And that a pet food manufacturer sees fit to treat dogs in this way is doubly outrageous b/c it ought to know what a dog needs to enjoy a reasonable quality of life. These (and many other) lab dogs had no quality of life to speak of.