IAMS & Eukanuba - the suffering behind the science

[Moo27]

Pretty shocking site listing some cruel,vile experiments- http://www.uncaged.co.uk/iams.htm

"IAMS’ CATALOGUE OF SHAME...

THE UNCAGED EXPOSÉ

Harmful, invasive and lethal experiments conducted on previously healthy cats, dogs and other animals - read our report including full references to scientific journals.

2003 EXPOSÉ

Damning and shocking evidence reveals "research policy to be a sham".

IAMS' cruel chick tests

Scientist criticises killing of hundreds of animals

Cruel mice tests revealed

PET FOOD INFO

Click here for our 'pet' food information sheet, with best buys and brands to boycott. See also our new guide - How to spot an animal testing company.

IAMS/EUKANUBA TEST ON ANIMALS

Uncaged first exposed IAMS/Eukanuba's painful, invasive and lethal tests on cats, dogs and other animals to the world in 2001 after extensive research through dozens of scientific journals.

IAMS/Eukanuba's experiments on hundreds of animals caused kidney failure, obesity, malnutrition, liver damage, severe allergic reactions, stomach inflammation, diarrhoea, severe skin disorders, lesions, skin wounds and other painful illnesses.

Our exposé became a front page story in the Daily Express, and the embarrassment forced IAMS/Eukanuba and their parent company, Procter & Gamble (P&G), to claim that they would stop lethal tests on cats and dogs in their new 'research policy.'

However, in 2003 IAMS/Eukanuba were exposed again - dogs kept in shocking condition had been force-fed vegetable oil, had chunks of muscle removed from their thighs, and been 'de-barked' by having their voice-boxes cut out in a painful and bloody procedure. The damning evidence confirmed IAMS' 'research policy' to be nothing more than a sham.

Several major UK animal organisations - e.g. the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross - severed ties with IAMS/Eukanuba and P&G as a result of the exposés and our campaigns. As have hundreds of rescue centres, shelters, kennels, catteries, 'pet' shops, training centres, cat and dog clubs and breeders.

Our campaigns appear to have made IAMS/Eukanuba finally stop killing cats and dogs in 'pet' food research.

However, they continue to knowingly cause pain and distress to cats and dogs in long-term laboratory experiments. And documentary evidence from research establishments and IAMS/Eukanuba's own admissions reveal that they continue to kill other animals in cruel nutrition tests.

Furthermore, since 1999 IAMS/Eukanuba have been part of the Procter & Gamble corporation, which continues to routinely poison and kill animals in tests to develop cosmetic and household products.

If you want to persuade IAMS and P&G to mend their cruel ways and stop animal testing, boycott IAMS/Eukanuba and other P&G brands."

"I must thank you for your professional, objective handling of the facts."
Tom Lonsdale, Veterinary Surgeon




But is also interesting to read who the 'good' food suppliers are!

http://www.uncaged.co.uk/petfood.htm

[Jasandjules]

How I wish I was in charge of the country and able to ban testing on animals in this way.

[Moo27]

I know, me too.

These were the stats that shocked me.

Number of Experiments by Species (Great Britain, 2009)

Mice: 2,628,556
Rats: 333,865
Guinea Pigs: 19,159
Hamsters: 3,157
Gerbils: 928
Other Rodents: 2,504
Rabbits: 16,562
Cats: 275
Dogs: 5,923
Ferrets: 890
Other Carnivores: 995
Horses/Donkeys/Cross-Bred Equids: 8,747
Pigs: 3,757
Goats: 133
Sheep: 38,003
Cattle: 4,358
Deer: 71
Birds: 126,781
Reptiles: 460
Amphibians: 20,715
Fish: 398,101
Marmoset/Tamarin Monkeys: 619
Macaque Monkeys: 3,644
Other Mammals: 1,315
GM and Harmful Mutants: 1,896,937


Why deer??? and what animals come under GM and harmful mutants? sickening.

[RB Will]

Happy to say my dog is fed Arden Grange. The research cant be working too well as James Wellbeloved gave her the squits.

[SGirl]

Shocking. We feed our dog Natural Instinct - she was started on Arden Grange at the dog's home but never took to it. I went round the houses to try to find a food she liked - I'm quite pleased now that I never bothered with IAMS!

[Mojocvh]

Shocking and has been going on for years.

Well done to those who expose these disgusting practices, "IT'S ONLY BLOODY PETFOOD"

[Terisis]

Waltham/Pedigree pet foods do it too

A lot of the major pet food companies do this type of invasive testing/research and then have the audacity to tell us their products have our pets' best interests at heart. The sooner they stop this kind of unnecessary experimentation, the better imo.

[otolith]

Moo27 said:

I know, me too.

These were the stats that shocked me.

Number of Experiments by Species (Great Britain, 2009)

Mice: 2,628,556
Rats: 333,865
Guinea Pigs: 19,159
Hamsters: 3,157
Gerbils: 928
Other Rodents: 2,504
Rabbits: 16,562
Cats: 275
Dogs: 5,923
Ferrets: 890
Other Carnivores: 995
Horses/Donkeys/Cross-Bred Equids: 8,747
Pigs: 3,757
Goats: 133
Sheep: 38,003
Cattle: 4,358
Deer: 71
Birds: 126,781
Reptiles: 460
Amphibians: 20,715
Fish: 398,101
Marmoset/Tamarin Monkeys: 619
Macaque Monkeys: 3,644
Other Mammals: 1,315
GM and Harmful Mutants: 1,896,937


Why deer??? and what animals come under GM and harmful mutants? sickening.

You need to look at those figures in context. They are the number of licensed procedures. A "procedure", for the purposes of legislation, can be something which you would be allowed to do without any government control in other circumstances. So, for example, taking a blood sample from an animal is a procedure. Putting an animal in a confined space (a catbox for example) is a procedure. One experiment with a dozen mice and a number of regulated actions for each animal quickly mounts up to give the statistics you see above.

Why deer? Well, most likely because the legislation covers a number of procedures involving wild animals as well as laboratory ones. There are exemptions for:

• the ringing, tagging or marking of an animal or the use of any other humane procedure for the sole purpose of enabling an animal to be identified is not a regulated procedure under A(SP)A if it causes only momentary pain or distress and no lasting harm;
• humane killing by a recognised method;
• procedures applied in the course of recognised veterinary practice;
• capture and release of wild animals unless the method of capture itself is being studied.

Which still leaves a vast number of procedures one might wish to carry out as part of scientific field studies which would need to be licensed and would appear in your list as licensed procedures. For instance, if you wished to look at pesticide residues in wild deer and wanted to dart them and take blood samples, both the darting and the taking of blood would be procedures.

http://www.ebd.csic.es/bioetica/Welfare_and_best_p...

"GM and harmful mutants" is likely to refer to animal models of human illness using breeds or genetically modified animals which exhibit those illnesses.

http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/abou...

If you want to genetically modify a mouse so that it suffers from muscular dystrophy, in order to conduct research towards curing the disease in humans, you will need to get a Home Office licence to do so, and will appear in those stats.

[Jasandjules]

otolith said:

You need to look at those figures in context. .

Not quite. All I need to do is know that I don't like the idea of animal testing full stop, let alone in these circumstances.

[otolith]

Jasandjules said:

Not quite. All I need to do is know that I don't like the idea of animal testing full stop, let alone in these circumstances.

You and yours don't partake of any modern medical advances, I take it?

[ali_kat]

otolith said:

Jasandjules said:

Not quite. All I need to do is know that I don't like the idea of animal testing full stop, let alone in these circumstances.

You and yours don't partake of any modern medical advances, I take it?

A degree of testing in animals is needed, in most forms of medical research. However, it can be done responsibly, without the animals suffering! I don't like it either, but have seen it done responsibly (B'ham QE & Uni for example) where the animals are not just looked after but loved by those that use them in tests. A necessary evil for progress

[Mojocvh]

ali_kat said:

otolith said:

Jasandjules said:

Not quite. All I need to do is know that I don't like the idea of animal testing full stop, let alone in these circumstances.

You and yours don't partake of any modern medical advances, I take it?

A degree of testing in animals is needed, in most forms of medical research. However, it can be done responsibly, without the animals suffering! I don't like it either, but have seen it done responsibly (B'ham QE & Uni for example) where the animals are not just looked after but loved by those that use them in tests. A necessary evil for progress

Good post ali, there has to be a dividing line somewhere, and I don't think making a particular brand of petfood 0.00001% "better" is it.

[otolith]

ali_kat said:

A degree of testing in animals is needed, in most forms of medical research. However, it can be done responsibly, without the animals suffering! I don't like it either, but have seen it done responsibly (B'ham QE & Uni for example) where the animals are not just looked after but loved by those that use them in tests. A necessary evil for progress

Worth reading the legislation covering the Conditions required for the granting of project licences to authorise animal work in the UK;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/14/sectio...

[ali_kat]

You assume I don't already know it?

Still don't agree with it, but it is a necessary evil for 'Medicine' (to cover the lot)

Food however

[otolith]

Point was that doing it responsibly is not optional in the UK, it's mandatory.

I don't know about the IAMS accusations, and haven't really commented on it - I'm not going to take the word of an organisation which is against any scientific use of animals as a balanced view of the merits or otherwise of a particular piece of research.

[ali_kat]

There is the way that says it has to be responsibly done & then there is the way it should be responsibly done.

Those rules leave a lot of room for manoeuvre . there is no detail on caring for the animals, giving them love & attention, treating them as pets, having large play areas nor just cages that meet the minimum standard guidelines.

[Moo27]

Very Valid points ali.

I think the thing that gets to me more than anything is the unecessary suffering that an animal will endure for these tests.

I appreicate that it certain circumstance, that some testing has to be done on animals, however i dont agree with it, i just wish their were stricter guidlines that had to be followed regarding the welfare of the animal.

I wouldve thought with all of todays modern technology, that animal testing could be completely avoided nowadays. There are enough scrotes out there wanting a quick fix for somethingoranother... do it on them.

[phil-sti]

i work for P&G and cant see what they would get from being cruel to animals for petfood?

to me I'm not really bothered about animal testing, lots of good has come from it and these animals are bred just for this purpose. i know it probably makes me sound heartless but we have to make advances.

[otolith]

Moo27 said:

I wouldve thought with all of todays modern technology, that animal testing could be completely avoided nowadays.

Where is can be avoided, a licence will not be granted;

F1(5)The Secretary of State shall not grant a project licence unless he is satisfied—(a)that the purpose of the programme to be specified in the licence cannot be achieved satisfactorily by any other reasonably practicable method not entailing the use of protected animals; and(b)that the regulated procedures to be used are those which use the minimum number of animals, involve animals with the lowest degree of neurophysiological sensitivity, cause the least pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, and are most likely to produce satisfactory results.]

See the link I posted above to the legislation covering this.

[Stevenj214]

Just posted on my facebook if anyone else would like to share:

Facebook said:

Do you feed your cat or dog any of the following:

Alpo, Bonio, Bounce, Cesar, Chappie, Eukanuba, Felix, Frolic, Go Cat, Gourmet, Hills Science, IAMS, James Wellbeloved, Katkins, Kitekat, Omega Complete, Pal, Pedigree Chum, ProPlan, Royal Canin, Sheba, Spillers, Vital Balance, Whiskas or Winalot?

They ALL use cruel and unethical animal testing and should be boycotted. Click the link to find out more.

http://www.uncaged.co.uk/iams.htm