The GD of pet food

Great Debates
21

I’m prickly, alright, but a prickly gal, if you please. Apologies for my sarcasm. I should have been a bit less flip, considering how emotional this subject can be.

Right, and I was hoping for a bit more detail than “Proctor and Gamble is Evil and IAMS tests on animals.” I was hoping that perhaps there was another page on the site that had more detail and I had simply overlooked it. Thank you for confirming that the P&G site in fact contained no useful information so I can give up the search. The fact that may have had more information in the past is not relevant, and I don’t see why you bothered with the link.

Well, according to the ASPCA statment I quoted to, IAMS’ research was not in violation of EU law. I do not know whether it was in violation of the laws in the UK, nor do I know where the research was even conducted since I cannot find any info, nor are you providing any. Or is your assertion that even though the research was conducted in the US, it would offend UK sensibilities?

It’s not clear to me that the organizations I liked to believe the problem has gone away. It seems that their stance is that was that the “problem” never existed in the first place, that is that IAMS did not violate reasonable standards for animal experimentation according to the laws of the US and the EU. If you have information to the contrary, please do share it.

I might not necessarily agree with these organizations, if you can give me some facts, but right now the battle is:

Six well-respected pro-animal organizations armed with a few scant facts vs. Nostradamus, girded only with righteous indigation and unspecific references to torture and killing.

If this is as big as an issue in the UK as you say, it’s strange that you cannot find several sources with information about it. I’m not saying that everything the Web is true; I’d just like to see some information, any information, that we can read. As I said, you could type in some exerpts from the article, or from the Uncaged Campaigns report, rather than simply making vague allusions to torture and killing.

I want to know what we’re talking about here. I don’t have a problem with euthanising animals in the course of an experiment. I would have a problem with keeping an animal alive if it was in pain. If you would actually tell us what abuses the article describes, we could discuss this.

I, and many other members of the human race, have benefited from products that required animal experimentation. I buy cruelty-free products as far as soap and that sort of thing, because I don’t think an animal should suffer so that I can have clean-smelling armpits. However, I do not have a problem with the use of medical procedures, drugs, or nutritional recommendations that were developed, in part, using animal experimentation. Why, then, would I have a problem feeding my cat a diet that has been proved safe and healthy through animal experimentation?

If you don’t agree, and you want to get cruelty-free products for your pet, that’s fine. But don’t be shocked if people get “prickly” when you declare before the discussion has even begun that they are illogical.

Okay, fine, as long as you realize it’s just a statment by some schmoe I don’t know from Adam, who I am not going to give my snail mail address do, no offense intended.

I’m just saying let’s discuss it based on some solid information that we can all review conveniently. If you want to convince me, and others, you need to give us some facts to chew on.

If you don’t want to bother, well, I’m already in de facto support of the IAMS boycott, 'cause, like I said, I feed Pooty-Foots nothing but Purina. :slight_smile:

deb2world asked:

this link was given above:
http://www.iams.com/aboutiams/falseallegations.html

The research was on how to use nutrition to prevent kidney and bladder disease in cats and dogs, bone deterioration in large dog breeds, etc.

22

Well, Podkayne, I am about to apologise for getting your sex 100 per cent wrong, when I see you think I am a schmoe, and when I check this word in my dictionary it seems you call me a fool.

I am by no means a fool, so I content myself in merely acknowledging your femininity, and make no apology whatever, since I fail to see why I am to treat you with respect, when you do not give me the same courtesy.

Also, I do not recall expressing righteous indignation on this matter, and if you are able to point out to me where this indignation is to be found, without resorting to name calling and condescension, I am very grateful.

I understand that you are unwilling to provide me with an address, even when I am in the UK and you are in the US. I think hell freezes over before I fly to the US to stalk you, as there are plenty of females I can stalk over here if I wish, and I can save money on travelling expenses by so doing.

Furthermore I am investigating this matter once more, and if I am unable to discover a website as a source, I place the summary of experiments on this thread as soon as I am able.

Have a nice day.

23

Now, for this oversight I do apologise, not only to others with an interest in this topic, but to Podkayne also.

The Uncaged Campaigns report on IAMS and Eukanuba is here.

24

“Schmoe” doesn’t necessarily mean “fool.” I used it to mean just some guy, an ordinary fellow, the man on the street. Perhaps you have heard the term “Joe Schmoe”? Your feelings were obviously hurt, and I’m sorry. My use of the term “schmoe” was not intended to characterize you in any way, other to point out that I don’t know you.

And please don’t get upset about my objections sending you my snail mail address. It’s not something I give out unless I’ve come to know someone very well. You say you’re over in England, but hell, you could be posting from the other side of town for all I know. It’s just my policy, and that’s why I said no offense meant.

I took no offense at your mistaking my gender, and I require no apology. I chose a somewhat obscure name, so any mistakes are my head. I cheerfully correct anyone who gets it wrong, and no harm done.

I was trying to bend over backwards in the last post to be accomodating and not to be insulting, since my previous post had rubbed you the wrong way, but it seems that I failed.
If you want to keep discussing the topic, without acrimony, I’m willing to. If you’re going to get your back up at every post I make, then let’s just drop it please.

Thank you for providing a link. I was pleased to see that this article was not filled with the inflamatory language I expected, and simply described the procedures clinically. Although I disagree with their conclusions, they are to be commended.

I didn’t see anything in the article that would make me stop buying the product. Most of the experiments were completly reasonable to me. I do not object to animals being euthanized and dissected at the end of an experiment, for example. Some of the experiments certainly involved suffering–inducing kidney failure being the most egregious, but what do we gain through this suffering?

When I was a kid, I our family had a cat who died in pain, of a preventable urinary tract infection, and it was awful. He had had an infection before, and was treated with medication, but the course of medication had been done some time ago. We noticed right away when his symptoms came back, but the infection had returned with a vengence, and there was nothing the vet could do to save him. His death wasn’t the worst part; it was the suffering before he died. I held him in my lap most of the time. He was hot with fever, shaking, and sick with pain, and he was in this condition for several hours before he was euthanised.

If the suffering of a cohort of 24 animals under laboratory conditions can produce dietary recommendations that will save hundreds or thousands of other pets from that kind of a death, I think it’s worth it.

I just do not agree that animal life is on the same level as a human life, and that animal suffering should be put on the same plane as human suffering. In my opinion, few animals suffering and dying in experiments is not the same thing as a few humans suffering and dying in an experiment. That’s an emotional, personal position. It has nothing to do with logic, and people who feel this way are not being illogical.

A hell of a lot of animals die painful deaths due to disease and neglect, or are euthanized in shelters–not to mention the animals that are raised for the express purpose of being killed and ground up into hamburger. I simply cannot get worked up over a few animals dying to serve a useful purpose. If you want to improve conditions for all of animal-kind, focusing on the small number that die in laboratories seems ridiculous when so many die without purpose.

25

I wish to say that my feelings are by no means hurt, as I simply point out those areas where I consider you are a touch abrasive, and you kindly explain at least one of these instances to me, which is a difference in interpretation of an item in a dictionary.

Let us please put down other areas of disagreement to interpretation also. The expression ‘getting one’s back up’ is unnecessary, as my back is by no means up, and I am merely wondering why, in Great Debates, posters sometimes appear vexed at various matters, but obviously I make a mistake in this respect, and if this is the norm around here, then so be it.

If we talk face to face on this matter, and I do not suggest this happens at any time, I am sure that misunderstandings of this kind do not occur.

The point I make several times in this thread is one of logic. Many citizens remain ignorant that these experiments occur, and the point I make to the supermarket is as follows:

‘Why do you not supply information to your customers that ethical problems regarding the development of IAMS may exist, so that these customers may make whatever choice they wish when purchasing pet food?’

You may disagree with my suggestion, and this is your choice, but the supermarket first agrees to it by email, and then retreats from this assent, giving no reason for this retreat.

I never say to them ‘Please remove this product from your shelves forthwith’ or ‘I am going to picket your premises’, or make any other remarks of an inflammatory nature.

I will never agree that torturing a cat in order to feed another cat is in any way a correct strategy. We are not talking about saving human life here, the matter concerns pet food, and the people who wish to feed these pets.

When you say many animals die through neglect, and disease, and euthanasia, I agree with your comment. But this experimentation is for commercial gain, and is an active process rather than a passive one. This manufacturer is taking cats and dogs from somewhere, or maybe breeding them for experiments, and actively torturing them for bottom line profit, and I think the pet food buying public deserves to be so informed of these incidents.

Furthermore, many parties question the effectiveness of these experiments anyway, and suggest alternative ways in which these products can be tested. If you require a source for this statement, I will search it out for you, and I will have it ready for you next post, if you make one.

I greatly appreciate the tone of your last post, and I assure you of my continued courtesy, from now until the cows return home.

26

Great, Nostradamus, I’m glad we can start fresh. I’ll try to watch my tone, too.

I agree with you to some degree that customers should be informed about the sort of testing that any company does on any product, but I disagree that the burden of providing that information should lie with the retailer.
Out of curiousity, how would you like your supermarket to give information about IAMS’ research practices? A sign? A pamphlet available on the shelf near IAMS product? A pamphlet given to every customer who buys IAMS? Do you think that they should have similar information available on all their products? If not, who in the supermarket should decide which manufacturers’ research practices must be described to the consumer? That seems like a great deal of work for the grocer–especially for an activity whose goal is to discourage people from spending money on the products on his shelves!

Seems to me that if the consumer is concered about animal experimentation, or environmental exploitation, or worker’s rights, the burden is on the consumer. The can go to sources like the ASPCA/RSPCA, PETA, Uncaged Campaigns, and other organizations appropriate to each issue. These organizations are free to use many different means to get their information out to the consumer. There have been succesful campaigns to pressure for labeling by the manufacturer, as well, so that the consumer can choose products that are “cruelty free” or “not tested on animals” or “made with post-consumer recycled materials” or what have you. The consumer can also seek out specialty retailers. There’s an organic food co-op in my town, for example, that proudly carries only cruelty-free products, and now with the Web there are probably retailers who cater to every preference imaginable.

On the research itself: IAMS is producing a commercial product, and their primary motive is profit. However, I don’t think that automatically renders their research unworthy. For one thing, this is peer-reviewed, published scientific research, conducted in public universities, available to anyone (including a consumer) who is willing to take the time to peruse it. It probably has repurcussions beyound IAMS’ new Lamb-and-Rice formula. Also, proper nutrition can greatly improve an animal’s quality of life. Special formulations for animals with special medical needs can significantly extended their lives, and spare them a painful death in favor of a quiet death in old age.

For example, our cat, who’s an indoor cat and doesn’t have another cat to keep her company, doesn’t really get much exercise. To keep her weight down, she is on a lower-calorie form of Cat Chow. Preventing obesity reduces her risk of developing arthritis and diabetes, and other problems associated with obesity. I imagine that some amount of animal experimentation probably went into the development of this formula. That research now has direct benefits on my cat’s life–not to mention the lives of other cats whose owners have chosen this product.

I wonder whether our cat Murdock might not have gone on to have a longer, happier life if our vet had recommended that after we finished with his medicine that we put him on a cat food that discourages the formation of crystals in his urine–and how could such a product be developed without experimentation?