Iams controversy

I was shocked when I was sent the link to the PETA site.  I hope that they were not treating the dogs as poorly as shown.  I don't think any animal should be treated inhumanely.

Welcome Ashley.
 
I don't rely much on PETA, since they seem to be sensationalists.  That's all I'll say about them.
 
Iams does do animal testing but I believe in recent years has made sure it's done in a more humane manner- whatever that is.  I don't buy their products. So it's not an issue for me.
 
I think you'll find most people on this board don't use or recommend Iams either.
Most feed a holsitic type kibble/canned or do raw. 
Many people rotate through different brands over the year (which is what I do) many rotate kibble, raw, canned and cooked to their dogs (which is what I do also). 
 
If you don't like the ethics of a company don't use their products.
 
and Welcome again!

[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=28848]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=28848[/link]
 
 

I feed Natural balance and I love their products.  Thanks for the info guys.  It is so hard to know what to believe and what to discount since there are so many opinions out there.  I was wondering how credible the PETA studies were although it is hard to deny the video evidence they present on their website after it is staring you in the face. (which by the way, was filled with tear stains!).

I don't buy Iams so I am not so concerned.  I feed my dog Authority Harvest baked lamb.  Everyone must choose what they wish to feed.  I am not going to feed my dog raw.  He doesn't like any type of people food or meat.  He likes kibbles only.

Gosh, even my non picky eaters might go on strike if they didn't get their homecooked or raw for dinner!!  They eat their Innova in the mornings with relish, but I'm not so sure that they'd continue to be crazy about it if that's all they ever got....

Everyone must choose what they wish to feed.

 
Your right Firestorm!
 
You can't trust a word that those PETA-freaks say. Everything is blown out of proportion to lean in their direction for their purpose.
I believe they started out (way back when) as a good organization, but, time has changed them. I just can't see where a group of people that claim they are concerned about animal suffering, can cause so much pain and suffering of people AND animals. They have a way of pulling on peoples heart strings to draw them in. Once your in, they brainwash you! Their are akin to a cult or terriorist organization. JMHO

The truth is if it were blatantly false, P&G would be suing PETA for libel. I don't think that's happened, so there's apparently truth to the situation. PETA is crazy (your dad is torturing animals by fishing?), but companies do some evil testing with animals. I have not ever fed Iams or Eukanuba due to the quality of it. This just makes sure that I'll never buy it in the future either.

I think it's smart to stay leery of both sides and find someplace in the middle that makes sense.  I've never used Iams products either and I remember when they were taken over by P&G.  A lot of folks in our online community, who were die hard Iams believers, saw bad changes to the food and stopped using it altogether as well.
 
Although I too feel that PETA may take certain things to the way-extreme, the same thing can be said of any group that holds strong opinions about any topic in the universe.  So yes, I think it's safe to assume we should take everything with a grain of salt. 
 
But on the other hand, per the ASPCA's letter "Iams funds the ASPCA's Pet Nutrition and Science Advisory Service".  I would rather not jump on the bandwagon with what is not only a mega-corporation, but one that is in bed with the group making these statements to their 'increased awareness'. 
 
Also I would have to wonder, if the person making the PETA films was prosecuted, why wasn't it public knowledge?  Why are the videos still available?  I would think P&G would certainly want everyone to know they took legal action against such claims if they were 100% false. 
 
Just all things to consider.  I frankly don't think we'll ever know the truth.  My motto is, that if it's questionable, don't financially support it ! 

This is why I don't feed Iams:
 
Adult Chunks
Chicken (mostly water, should be meal), Corn Meal (allergen, filler), Ground Whole Grain Sorghum (carb, low digestibility), Chicken By-Product Meal (inconsistent ingredient - multiple organs used, questionable nutritional value), Fish Meal (source of fish oil) (unspecified types of fish, could be preserved with ethyquoxin (sp?), Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of vitamin E, and Citric Acid), Dried Beet Pulp (stool hardener) (sugar removed), Natural Chicken Flavor, Potassium Chloride, Dried Egg Product (undeveloped eggs, shells, and other tissues-should be whole eggs) , Brewers Dried Yeast (potential allergen) , Salt (flavor enhancer, not necessary), Flax Meal, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Vitamins........

In the first reply from Sooner, she posted a link to a prior debate on this wherein Mic Foster pointed out that he lives nearly across the street from Iams research and several of his neighbors work there and no such animal abuse goes on. At one point in history, all companies were doing testing. As society evolved, so did their testing ethics.

Also, P & G doesn't have to sue PETA for libel. In their minds, such a patent untruth or sensationalism from PETA is not worth the lawyer fees. Secondly, people are going to believe what they want to believe, which may or may not be the truth. Many spin doctors advise their clients not to even respond to baseless accusations.

But, if you don't want to buy their product because you don't like the name on the management company that invests in them, that's certainly your right. Also, many choose not to feed their product soley on the ingredient list, even if it provides the proper nutrient profile. Others don't feed it from experience. They may have had a dog that didn't do well on it. All of those reasons are understandable.

As previously mentioned, Iams does not engage in the abusive testing they are accused of but people will believe what they want to believe, which is a fundamental right in this country.
 
I, for example, feed Nutro Large Breed Adult Lamb and Rice. My dog has always done well on it and I've never had a problem with it. The only time he had a reaction to eating a food is when I fed him Innova for two weeks. Back on Nutro, his symptom went away. So, now its Nutro's turn to be the target of the rumor mill.
 
I also understand that you want to do the right thing and all of this stuff on the net can be confusing. But read all the info that you can, make your decision, and then stand by it.

ORIGINAL: schlep

The truth is if it were blatantly false, P&G would be suing PETA for libel. I don't think that's happened, so there's apparently truth to the situation. PETA is crazy (your dad is torturing animals by fishing?), but companies do some evil testing with animals. I have not ever fed Iams or Eukanuba due to the quality of it. This just makes sure that I'll never buy it in the future either. 
 
 

 
 
 
Legally, that's too simplistic.  You have to consider whether any tangible damage to reputation can be shown (diminished sales), whether a judgment would be collectible (esp. against a non-profit), and whether such recovery would exceed the attys fees incurred to prosecute the action.  Not many lawyers would take that case on a contingency!  

The AWA ensures humane treatment of all animals used in commerce, be it retail pet shops, labs, or dog food manufacturing companies.
Granted, we would never dream of treating our dogs that way, but the AWA require any facility to meet the minimum standards of care.
As far as dog food companies using animal testing, most do it to some degree if they are meeting AAFCO feed trial requirements. Eagle Pack doesn't do feeding trials per se in kennels or labs, but with real "pet" dogs in the homes of the consumers.
Now, I am going to assume that some other companies say their food has meet the AAFCO feeding trial requirements, how where those trials conducted? Do they maintain their own kennel or contract the feeding trials out to a laboratory to do it for them?
We are walking on that thin line between aniaml welfare and animal rights, which we all know are very DIFFERENT! By law, animals are considered chattel (property) and don't have rights (like that of humans). Since they are living being however, they do deserve to be treated humanely and be care for properly. While we will provide above any standard that the government would set for care, these large companies can't afford the same luxuary with these animals. They are just another tool for the research and marketing department. Is it cruel? To some, it may be, but not by law.
 
[linkhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/publications/AWA/AWAINDEX.HTML]http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/publications/AWA/AWAINDEX.HTML[/link]
 
 

Also, keep in mind that the PETA person was hired by IAMS to take care of the animals and make sure no abuse took place so if the PETA person did not do the job they were hired for, that would make IAMs negligent, so legally, I would think it would be a mess.