Iams Kills

ORIGINAL: Raja19

People will most likely dissagree with me but I am not sure how I feel about animal testing. I tend to think it is wrong, and there must be some other way if some companies can not do animal reasearch.
I read the information on my dogs arthritis medication and how they extreamly overdose dogs and their reactions, I am sorry but I do not find that right or humane. One of my aunts used to work for a drug company and she has seen awful things, and I will not support that. To me that is torturing an animal. '
That is my opinion and many will dissagree, and that is totally fine. I just do not think it is right to cage up an animal and do all sorts of things to it.
Maybe if I had a clearer understanding of what the guidlines are I would think differently, but for now I am against animal testing.

How about the sales staff that recently caused a brain aneurism in a dog in a demonstration for doctors in order to pedal their drugs.  Then they killed the dog when the experiment was over. I bet the people that are defending it would feel a bit different of their dog or cat was used for the experiment.  As long as it is someone elses animal, then it's Ok I guess...[&:]
 I wonder how many of the people that think this type of  experimentation is Ok and are defending it , would be willing to give up their pets for medical research purposes?
[linkhttp://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/42203/]http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/42203/[/link]

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: Raja19

People will most likely dissagree with me but I am not sure how I feel about animal testing. I tend to think it is wrong, and there must be some other way if some companies can not do animal reasearch.
I read the information on my dogs arthritis medication and how they extreamly overdose dogs and their reactions, I am sorry but I do not find that right or humane. One of my aunts used to work for a drug company and she has seen awful things, and I will not support that. To me that is torturing an animal. '
That is my opinion and many will dissagree, and that is totally fine. I just do not think it is right to cage up an animal and do all sorts of things to it.
Maybe if I had a clearer understanding of what the guidlines are I would think differently, but for now I am against animal testing.

How about the sales staff that recently caused a brain aneurism in a dog in a demonstration for doctors in order to pedal their drugs.  Then they killed the dog when the experiment was over. I bet the people that are defending it would feel a bit different of their dog or cat was used for the experiment.  As long as it is someone elses animal, then it's Ok I guess...[&:]

[linkhttp://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/42203/]http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/42203/[/link]

 
Exactly and personally I think that is wrong and discusting. I can not imagine one of my dogs being put into some reasearch lab to live out their lives being tested on. I guess the main reason why I feel it is wrong, is because if we were to do this on children and people, people would be outraged...but oh if it is a dog..then it is okay??? If some companies can do without reasearch then why can't they all...point is they can. I do not support PETA but I do support alot of animal rights groups. And that is just me. I do not think it is fair to the animal in the reasearch lab.

How about the sales staff that recently caused a brain aneurism in a dog in a demonstration for doctors in order to pedal their drugs.  Then they killed the dog when the experiment was over. I bet the people that are defending it would feel a bit different of their dog or cat was used for the experiment.  As long as it is someone elses animal, then it's Ok I guess...[&:]
I wonder how many of the people that think this type of  experimentation is Ok and are defending it , would be willing to give up their pets for medical research purposes?
[linkhttp://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/42203/]http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/42203/[/link]

 
I agree!  THAT incident stikes a nerve,,I believe (sorry but I didn't open your link) that happened right here in my city of Cleveland at the world famous Cleveland Clinic. There was not a radio or TV station that didn't cover that negatively.   IT was terrible and I hope that the incident was not just dropped and forgotten.
You asked about how other premium food companies test their food...why can't they all do them like Eagle Pack does, see their comment!
I feel there is no way that food companies have to test any other way!

[font=arial][color=#a88f04]Testing

• Eagle Pack Pet Foods, Inc. does not do any testing on laboratory or caged animals, nor do we have a kennel facility or cattery.
  
• Members of our Breeder Advisory Council, using their personal pets, normally perform nutritional and palatability tests.

[/color][/font]

 

ORIGINAL: dyan


I agree!  THAT incident stikes a nerve,,I believe (sorry but I didn't open your link) that happened right here in my city of Cleveland at the world famous Cleveland Clinic. There was not a radio or TV station that didn't cover that negatively.   IT was terrible and I hope that the incident was not just dropped and forgotten.
You asked about how other premium food companies test their food...why can't they all do them like Eagle Pack does, see their comment!
I feel there is no way that food companies have to test any other way!

[font=arial][color=#a88f04]Testing

• Eagle Pack Pet Foods, Inc. does not do any testing on laboratory or caged animals, nor do we have a kennel facility or cattery.
  
• Members of our Breeder Advisory Council, using their personal pets, normally perform nutritional and palatability tests.

[/color][/font]

 
I think that is great, and that makes me wonder why all pet food companies are not doing that.
 
Is it cheaper to have labratory animals? It seems like it would not be. That is what bugs me the most, is that there are ways to not do subject an animal to this sort of thing, and yet so many companies still do.

There is a big, big difference between testing drugs and testing foods.  Comparing the 2 is apples and oranges.
 
Kate

Yeah,,,like why not just feed them normal? How can you REALLY compare some of these caged lab dogs to our own anyway?  
 
And I wonder how much its worth it???   When they came out with the PH6 Shot ( 6 month infectable HW prevention ) I'm know it was tested a lot....dogs were probably given way more than normal dose to see what happened.
So what good did it do?? Ask Sandra ( and Hunter ) and the others who lost dogs to that drug anyway!

So is this thread about testing on animals to further MEDICINE (all types for all creatures) or dog food...because ya know what? Totally different animals, pun intended.
 
Reading between the lines on the Eagle Pack quote, it looks like they test in kennels not owned by them, but run by people they have on their council that likely have large numbers of dogs available for testing. I wonder if they are reputable breeders...do they have info on names of these council members?

There is no way to test a drug on the level it will eventually be used IMO...you can test thousands and when millions use it...things will come up sometimes. That's medicine. At what point do you release it then? Never?
 
Even the old steady Heartguard/Ivermectin will kill a large number of dogs of certain breeds if administered...how did they find that out? Animal testing or the fact that dogs began to die when it was released widely? Both? I am thinking it was both...it lead to research ID'ing the "why" and now we know something we did not before, likely due to animal testing.

 
Reading between the lines on the Eagle Pack quote, it looks like they test in kennels not owned by them, but run by people they have on their council that likely have large numbers of dogs available for testing. I wonder if they are reputable breeders...do they have info on names of these council members?

 
Not sure WHICH lines you are reading in between? It says "Eagle Pack Pet Foods, Inc. does not do ANY testing on laboratory or caged animals, NOR do we have a kennel facility. The testing is done in homes.

There is a big, big difference between testing drugs and testing foods.  Comparing the 2 is apples and oranges.

I'm sure that is true... and I suppose animals have to be used...but I don't see where caged animals have to be used for pet food.

ORIGINAL: dyan

Reading between the lines on the Eagle Pack quote, it looks like they test in kennels not owned by them, but run by people they have on their council that likely have large numbers of dogs available for testing. I wonder if they are reputable breeders...do they have info on names of these council members?

Not sure WHICH lines you are reading in between? It says "Eagle Pack Pet Foods, Inc. does not do ANY testing on laboratory or caged animals, NOR do we have a kennel facility. The testing is done in homes.

I think I might know what Gina's talking about. Maybe. Perhaps the members of the breeding advisory council (er, or whatever it's called[8D]) do testing on their animals in their homes as it suggests. It says "nutritional and palatability" tests. Iams said "nutritional tests" as well, if I recall correctly. Maybe Gina took the council part of the quote to mean that they test on animals within their own homes.

OTOH, that quote could mean that they take the food home and give it to their pets to eat to test the food and no cruel testing is done.

Members of our Breeder Advisory Council, using their personal pets, normally perform nutritional and palatability tests
 
No they, Eagle Pack Inc., do not test and do not own kennels...they have others do it...members of the BAC using their dogs as testers. If these people are breeder's (which is implied given the name of the "council") then they likely have more than a few dogs or cats, each...in fact they may have kennels/catteries.
 
All I asked, was if they say who these folks are...because if they are folks that keep larger numbers of dogs in kennels on their own property that would make sense, because larger numbers of dogs and cats yield more benefit when one is testing palatability and nutrition. I wondered if certain info on this council were available, like the amount of people on the council, thier names, and what breeds they have...that sort of thing.
 

Actually many of us feel OUR dogs HAVE BEEN use as test subjects in a way.  After Hunter died of AIHA and liver damage brought on by ProHeart6 and I and my vet reported it to the maker, the maker wanted HUNTER'S ENTIRE MEDICAL RECORD.  I agreed.  After all, my vet and i both knew he was in top condition, never been sick a day in his 4 years, 1 1/2 months and by then we knew many dogs had been diagnosed with AIHA soon after a PH6 injection. 
 
Well, as time went on, I learned from many, many others that Fort Dodge also wanted THEIR dog's entire medical records.  Some decided they were looking to things in the dog's background that could have caused the reactions to PH6.  Some refused saying  no way was their dog 's death to be used as part of their research---it should have been done before the product hit the market.  And one in Australia who almost lost his dog to it said the dogs down there WERE LAB RATS because there was no FDA to contrrol stuff.  if a dog had a reaction/death, it was reported to the proper govern,ment agency who then turned it over to the manuracture to "investigate and decide if THEIR product was at fault, which they never seemed to do."  Proheart was used in Australia for a couple of yers before it hit the market here.  It stayed on the market  here for 3 years and killed so many dogs, caused so many to have reactions that will cause them to be on drugs the rest of their lives that the FDA "requested" they remove it--10 months to late for my Hunter.
 
So yes, many of us feel not near enough costly research was done so our dogs were used--He$$ they made money and still got their information. 

When I was feeding California Natural  i called them and they assured me they did no animal testing whatsoever except taste testing..
 
I will never buy IAMS due to that unnecessary cutting dogs legs open to look at the muscle !!  Oh yes, they emailed to tell me they stopped,,,,uh huh  or let me remember, did they say they only tested on their own personal dogs now?

Dogs do not need to live short lives in cages, devoid of all the things that makes them dogs, to test pet food.  Plenty of nutrional research takes place for  human beings without involving anyone's suffering.
 
 

dog foods aren't made for dogs anymore, they're made for owners.

 
And when were they made for dogs?  et food was invented for the sole purpose of owner convenience, not for the best interest of the animals. Only now in the last decade or so is a true effort being put forth to formulate foods with the animal's health in mind - recognizing different sized dogs have different needs, putting better ingredients into foods etc..  If owners didn't care about their dogs, than the companies wouldn't feel feel the need to make large breed foods, allergy foods etc... when they can just ut garbage on the shelves that everybody will run out and buy.   No one is out there formulating and manufacturing dog food simply out of good will.   Therefore, no one is goign to be making dog food "for dogs" as you say.  It's either going to be what the consumer wants, or what the company wants.  The company wants highest profit margins and the consumer wants what's best for the dog.  Who would you rather dog food being made for?