Iams TV dog

[TDG]

Everyone on this forum wants the best food and vetrinary care for their pets, but how would you propose to discover these things without some experimentation?

tests that sponsor animals who are already suffering from a particular disease for example? why for example is it necessary that for example healthy dogs get one kidney removed surgically and one damaged beyond repair, just to test veterinary diets? i'm sure there are thousands of people who would happily participate in clinical trials with their pets in order to further research. after all kidney disease is one of the leading causes of death in domestic dogs.

clinical issues aside, why would you do the cruel kind MET testing the iams company does? i doubt there are very many dog owners out there who keep their dog in little stainless steel cages 24/7 with no exercise or play, so why would it be necessary to test any type of pet food under entirely artificial circumstances? there is absolutely no excuse for the fact that these dogs don't at the very least get housed in proper kennels with runs, access to sunlight and fresh air, a soft bed to sleep on, some toys and a chance to socialize now and then.

I would also like to point out that since P+G appears to publish their findings in scientific publications do you all think that all the other "no test" companies ignore the benefit of that research and don't read the article becuase they don't want to test on animals.

i do not oppose all animal testing, for some medical purposes it is sadly required. this doesn't include pet food tho, and for many other non-medical things (like houshold stuff, cosmetics etc.) it isn't required anymore either. you only need to look past the borders of your own country, to europe for example - where many more alternative testing methods are already in place and unnecessary animal testing is banned. leave it to the corporate giants like P&G to attempt sidestepping such restrictions to get their products onto the european market. i'm glad they did not succeed and hope more people hereint he US will become aware of this kind of business practices.

NO, the answer to that is they don't want to spend the money to make the best food possible

pardon me, but this is complete and utter BS. if a company uses quality ingredients for a pet food, there is no reason to do any testing that goes beyond regular feeding trials, which does not involve any pain and suffering. meats and meat meals aren't going to kill any pets, and neither are quality grains, vegetables, fruits and vitamin/mineral supplements. is the toast or cereal you eat for breakfast tested on animals? the hamburger you buy at mcdonald's (or some other grease pit) for lunch?

i can tell you why all this "scientific research" is done by the corporate giants tho: to continually attempt to lower product cost for a larger profit margin, at the expense of including quality ingredients. just look at the crap in iams and science diet pert foods, and how much you pay per pound of what is little more than flavored corn or third-grade rice?

Now for the other side of the coin....Where you aware that P+G sponsored(i.e. discovered, developed, and FUNDED) a major multi-center trial of an animal testing alternative to a barbaric test call the "Draize test".

and that's what they should do, after all they are one of the giants who made and still make most of their profit at the expense of animals used in testing.

EVERY component of anything you have ever bought in your entire life has been used in this test. IT MUST BE TESTED. That way when your 3 year old child pours his shampoo in his eyes it won't burn them right out of his head. I'm sorry, but everything is tested this way. Products that claim they were not animal tested simpley use a mix of previously tested components and then they can say "our formula was never tested on animals", but I can gaurantee you that every single ingredient WAS TESTED.

yep, and you are saying it's a bad thing if companies do that? why, should they do additional testing and cause even more suffering to prove something that has been proven already int he past? i don't see the point...

So back to the Driaze test, basically they pour things into rabbit eyes and score the dammage on a scale of established chemicals from caustic agents to water. P+G was working with Kimberly Clark on this test about 5 years ago and I know because I was one of the scientist hired to test the alternative. You'll be happy to know the alternative used cultured cells rather than live animals. These types of test are being developed all the time, but we can't make the jump overnight as much as we would all like to.

yep, i'm aware of all that, but it still surprises me why the US are so far behind in this kind of thing, where for example cruelty-free alternatives hav been used for a large number of testing in european countries. also, the european union successfully passed a ban on cosmetics animal testing and a ban on the sale of new animal tested cosmetics in january 2003. in the US, sadly, lobbying has a huge impact on government decisions, so corporate giants continue to pull strings to get resolutions passed in their interest.

Just so you know the costs of animal testing are absoultely astronomical so I can assure you that no one is doing these tests for fun their probably just trying to find the best food for your pets. As always I am more than willing to discuss this subject, but please be kind.

see the paragraph i wrote earlier in my post on testing animal feed. nothing more than standard feeding trials, which could even be done by private breeders sponsored by the pet food manufacturers (hey, what a novel idea? some smaller companies are already doing it that way!!) should be required to something that is not some kind of possibly deadly medication - it's food for dog's sake!

[TDG]

PETA and groups like them frequently lie about how animals are treated.

uh, yeah. and the photos are all fabricated, right? even if in the worst case half of what they report is true, it's still bad enough.

By United States law the dogs must be give play time out side of their cages and if they don't the USDA would shut them down.

yeah, just like the USDA shuts down licensed puppy mills, right? and of course pet stores. we all know this type of cruelty doesn't really happen, it's just animal rights organizations exaggerating. good grief.

These types of facilites are constantly inspected, again I know this from personal experience.

yep, and the people who inspect them make decisions in the interest of whom? and who comes up with the guideslines as to what constitutes "adequate" living conditions for these animals? the same people who come up with the numbers for "adequate" nutrition, like the AAFCO?

I honestly didn't even bother to look at the links provided, because that type of propaganda on the internet is usually a waste of time........most of the time it turns out to be completely untrue or at best 1/2 true. Unfortunately the people who sneak into these facilites and "report" what is going on most likely don't even understand the basics of the experiment.

as i said above, even if just half of what they report is true, it's still bad enough and the public has a right to hear about it, even if the companies conducting these tests would so much prefer to do it behind closed doors. and so what if those people who report don't understand what's going on? unacceptable living conditions are unacceptable living conditions, there is nothing to understand about that. there is absolitely no excuse for animals being shut away in dark rooms living sad, sad lives.

if conditions were actually appropriate, why does iams not allow the media to report about it, for example a documentary about the so-called "retirement kennel" in alabama?

One reason to cut a muscle and not stitch it up would be to test wound healing which is basically a study of how the immune system is doing.

and why should this be necessary for a food product????

If you interfear too much with the natural healing, this would invalidate the study and then why bother doing it at all??????? The ability of the immune system to heal could be a direct reflection of the quality of a dogs/cats diet. We are trying to feed our pets the appropriate food, but without testing it's a total guess.

it does not require a scientist to feed a dog or cat, that is a well proven fact. i know, it's something all the big-shot dog food companies want to make people believe, and unfortunately with a big advertisement budget it's very easy to sway those consumers who are too lazy do do a bit of research. if you are feeding a quality product, and not something that would be better suited as cattle food or fertilizer, you don't have to worry about wound healing, because the animal's body will get all the nutrients it needs. it doesn't take a scientist at a dog food company to research that.

[TDG]

Without reading a detailed description of the study I am guessing as to why the scientists didn't want toys in the cages? Perhaps they were afraid of the toys introducing a variable that would invalidate the study.

good grief. dogs kept in tiny cages for metabolic study, and not even a rubber chew toy or what. like a study under those circumstances is even remotely going to reflect a "real life" situation of an animal that is supposed to eat the food later on.

Complex studies of nutrition, behavior, and growth can be adversely affected by the introduction of too many variables.

these folks are not behaviorists, they are testing a dog food, so let's leave out the behavior argument right away. i again have to question why "complex studies" would be necessary for a non-prescription food, and why healthy animals should suffer for it. per AAFCO regulations, either feeding trials or lab analysis are sufficient, and even those are of little significance considering the requirements. if you are not familiar with this topic, i suggest you order and read the yearly AAFCO publication. it's quite an interesting read, especially if you are feeding your pet a commercial food.

This could be something as simple as the idea that the beagles frequently used in these studies are born and raised in specific pathogen free conditions, meaning that they don't ever have exposure to common viruses and bacteria(they are bred to be lab animals). A toy rolling around in the bottom of a cage becomes a sink for these bacteria making all the dogs sick and invalidating the study and perhaps killing the dogs?

that's just as good as saying let's not feed or water those lab animals because they could get sick and die from bacteria in their food and water bowls. if these animals are housed and taken care of properly, bedding and toys would not pose any risk at all.

Really to get valuable data from these types of study the experienc/history of each test subject is usually as similar as possible. This is why I can never understand who in the world buys dogs from animal shelters for experimentation.......I don't understand how they can validate the data with all those variable genetic backgrounds, environmental exposures, etc.

that doesn't make any sense whatsoever - at least if we are still talking about dog food here. what good is for example a study done exclusively on beagles of a single bloodline (remember you said bred for testing?) going to do hundreds of thousands of dogs of entirely different breeds with widely differing environmental, metabolic and nutritional requirements out there? if you wanted to create a product that is suitable to feed a wide range of animals, you would want to have as much variety in your test group as possible - not only in breeds (or non-breeds lol) but also in gender and age.

[kendalyn]

good grief. dogs kept in tiny cages for metabolic study, and not even a rubber chew toy or what. like a study under those circumstances is even remotely going to reflect a "real life" situation of an animal that is supposed to eat the food later on.

The scientists don't want a "real life" environment when they are testing. That comes in a whole different phase. I participate in experimental drug studies for Pfizer and they do NOT want a real life situation while I am taking their drug. I have taken drugs intended for people with cancer, but before they give it to the people with cancer they give to to the most healthy people they can find. And usually I am required to stay in the Pfizer testing unit and everything I do is regulated. It's sort of the same thing with animal testing. The scientists need to control every variable possible, otherwise what's the point?

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this issue. I do know that I wouldn't believe everything on those animal right's websites, but I wouldn't discount all of it either.

[science_doc]

Okay TDG I read what you had to say and I understand your position. I don't want to reply in detail to everything you said, cause I think we will never see totally eye to eye. I've had this deabte before and I just want to try and educate people on the truths about lab animal science without animal liberation groups negative propaganda. That being said I'm glad the public keeps an eye on us. Where you aware that every U.S. federally funded study involving animals goes through a review process that involves the approval of not only vetrinarians, but also one non-science member of the local community? I can't speak for every company out there, but I have worked in the private sector as well as goverenment funded labs and the vast majority do everything possible to make their animals as comfortable as possible.

Kendalyn hit it right on the head. You cannot do any valid scientific study with too many variables. For example, people often suggest we should test drugs on prison inmates instead of lab animals. Well if you stop to think about that, the results would be uniterpretable. Say 6 of 10 of your prisoners get cancer when you give them the drug, okay the drug causes cancer? Well what if I told you that 5 of those 6 prisoners smoked and 3 shot heroin. Now what caused the cancer, the drug, the heroin, or the cigarettes? You seen how even a couple variables make the study uniterpretable? A metabloic study would absolutely need to monitor the animals very closely for some fairly long periods of time, so I'm not surprised the animals were in small enclosures during the study. I would be surprised if they continously housed them that way. This is why pictures taken by animal activist could be VERY misleading.

As for bedding and toys not posing any harm, unfortuantely as far as I know no one makes autoclavable toys and bedding, the heat and intense pressure would destroy them. Without that type of cleaning treatment they would quickly become contaminated with bacteria and viruses and perhaps kill the poor animals. I do feel bad for the vast majority of lab animal enviroments and there is a group of scientists, myself included working on ways to change the current housing of all laboratory animals including rodents.

As for P+G I believe they are breaking into the health care market as well as pet food, so some of the test you say were probably for human health products. I think that it's unfair to judge the work based on photographs taken by animal rights activists. If the government has busted them, I'm happy that the violations were caught. I'll never hesitate to pick up the phone and call in violations I see, I hope other scientists are the same way. My point about the dog food is that I think it's hipocritical to pick and choose different companies to boycott becuase they all have directly used or benefited from animal research. I believe that very few people realize the amount of research that goes into the products they use.

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote name='kendalyn']

good grief. dogs kept in tiny cages for metabolic study, and not even a rubber chew toy or what. like a study under those circumstances is even remotely going to reflect a "real life" situation of an animal that is supposed to eat the food later on.

The scientists don't want a "real life" environment when they are testing. That comes in a whole different phase. I participate in experimental drug studies for Pfizer and they do NOT want a real life situation while I am taking their drug. I have taken drugs intended for people with cancer, but before they give it to the people with cancer they give to to the most healthy people they can find. And usually I am required to stay in the Pfizer testing unit and everything I do is regulated. It's sort of the same thing with animal testing. The scientists need to control every variable possible, otherwise what's the point?

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this issue. I do know that I wouldn't believe everything on those animal right's websites, but I wouldn't discount all of it either.

kendalyn, we are not talking about medication here (testing for clinical reasons is an entirely different matter), but about dog food. why would you subject animals to pain and suffering for a mere food project? that is what makes me so mad about it. i do not think there are any ingredients that should be in a food your dog ingests on a daily basis that should require any form of animal testing, except feeding trials.

[kendalyn]

I don't know exactly what they're testing. I haven't looked into it at all. But I do agree with Science_doc when she says that animal testing is so expensive that they would not be doing it for no reason. I just don't believe that these people are monsters who enjoy torturing animals for the fun of it.

[Guest Anonymous]

*Deleted*

[science_doc]

Each animal is selected for it's characteristics which make it ammenable for the study. for example, if your studying sleep, cats make excellent subjects since they sleep so much every day. Pigs have a digestive tract which is very similar to people, so they are good for intestinal work. I'm really not sure what dogs are used for, I have never worked with them in a laboratory setting. I do know that there are lots of beagles used for research I just don't know what they do with them. Some of the things people were describing sound like bone/wound healing work? Often testing is done first in rodents, because they are small and easy to handle and far less expensive than testing in bigger subjects like dogs and pigs.

BTW primates make horrible study subjects......I am almost in agreement with a ban on all primate testing. They do not do well in cages at all.

[kendalyn]

The arguemnt was brought up that you cannot autoclave a rubber dog toy(and even then you CAN cleanse them..and if not them replace them..atleast give them some reward for being your test subject)...

Cleansing isn't good enough unfortunately. There are lots of bacteria that can survive antiseptic substances. Autoclaving is the best method to be sure that something is totally sterile. Even autoclaving is not foolproof though. There are some prions that can survive autoclaving. :o

I suppose they might be able to give the dogs rawhides or something edible like that though. It would depend on the study probably.

I would hope that the scientists would try and give the dogs whatever is possible and still maintain the integrity of the research.

I would think that dogs are chosen as subjects for testing dog food (or other dog related products) for obvious reasons...

[Guest Anonymous]

*Deleted*

[TDG]

Where you aware that every U.S. federally funded study involving animals goes through a review process that involves the approval of not only vetrinarians, but also one non-science member of the local community? I can't speak for every company out there, but I have worked in the private sector as well as goverenment funded labs and the vast majority do everything possible to make their animals as comfortable as possible.

i am aware of what is going on, just like i am aware of the conditions in "USDA approved" commercial kennels that are actually puppy mills, pet shops, slaughter houses etc. - if i have to deduct the results of inspections of such places (that are still allowed to operate), i do not have much more faith in any inspections at labs that do animal testing. just the fact that the government is somehow regulating something doesn't mean that conditions are appropriate.

Kendalyn hit it right on the head. You cannot do any valid scientific study with too many variables. For example, people often suggest we should test drugs on prison inmates instead of lab animals. Well if you stop to think about that, the results would be uniterpretable. Say 6 of 10 of your prisoners get cancer when you give them the drug, okay the drug causes cancer? Well what if I told you that 5 of those 6 prisoners smoked and 3 shot heroin. Now what caused the cancer, the drug, the heroin, or the cigarettes? You seen how even a couple variables make the study uniterpretable?

i'm perfectly aware of all this, and have repeatedly stated that in some clinical studies such procedures maight be required, but do not forget that we are talking about testing for pet food here, which is absolutely ludicrous. saying this is necessary is just as much out of line as demanding that your breakfast cereal be tested on animals.

A metabloic study would absolutely need to monitor the animals very closely for some fairly long periods of time, so I'm not surprised the animals were in small enclosures during the study. I would be surprised if they continously housed them that way. This is why pictures taken by animal activist could be VERY misleading.

no, it is not necessary to confine animals like that for met testing. it is also not necessary that they live on a stainless steel cage floor 24 hours a day for extended periods of time. not for a pet food, and especially not for a company that touts "a total culture of care" as a slogan and denies that certain things are going on.

As for bedding and toys not posing any harm, unfortuantely as far as I know no one makes autoclavable toys and bedding, the heat and intense pressure would destroy them. Without that type of cleaning treatment they would quickly become contaminated with bacteria and viruses and perhaps kill the poor animals.

it is completely beyond me how virii would be introduced into a closed, controlled, already sterile environment if toys or bedding were properly treated to begin with. have you ever seen how patients who are at a high risk for any kind of infection etc. are housed at hospitals? they aren't kept in stainless steel cages but in beds just like any other patient, and they also have items taken into and out of their controlled environment multiple times every single day.

that kind of argument completely aside, we are still talking about pet food here. pet food, that by other companies is tested by lab analysis, or feeding trials under circumstances you'd find in a normal kennel environment.

As for P+G I believe they are breaking into the health care market as well as pet food, so some of the test you say were probably for human health products.

breaking into the health care market? i believe you don't have much of an idea about the procter & gamble company and their business practices at all. maybe you want to read up on that a bit before we debate this any further, because it's kind of a waste of time to try and discuss the topic with someone who claims he knows what's going on but isn't informed enough to know what a company is all about. i'm not trying to put you down, but from the few posts you made i don't think you are what you are trying to make people believe you are.

procter & gamble have been making prescription drugs, health care products, household items, cosmetics, baby care items and other things for a long time, but just got into the pet food market by buying up the iams company in 09/99. since then, the quality of both iams and eukanuba pet foods has drastically declined, but i guess the profit margin increased quite a bit.

other than that, it was expressly stated that the animals in question were used for iams testing, so no, they weren't used for anything else. if they had been used for other testing before or after the iams tests, it would have violated the voluntary restrictions that the iams company set for themselves - you can find them on their website if you are interested in actually following up on a topic.

My point about the dog food is that I think it's hipocritical to pick and choose different companies to boycott becuase they all have directly used or benefited from animal research. I believe that very few people realize the amount of research that goes into the products they use.

again i have to ask, from a nutritional standpoint, why would you have to do this kind of testing? it's completely unnecessary because there isn't anything that would really require any testing that goes further than simple feeding trials.

i have studied over 750 pet food ingredients in detail in the past 3+ years and am pretty confident discussing all of them. out of those, maybe 100 or so are actually substances that would have required animal testing in the past, the majority of which you wouldn't even want to have in a quality pet food to begin with. also, there are many pet food companies that have done research for far longer than iams who have never been targeted for this kind of cruelty. makes you think, doesn't it?

fact is that P&G has a long history of very, very questionable business practices, spin-doctoring a lot of facts to look more appealing to the public, and making promises they still fail to keep. as an informed customer, i do not feel that it is hypocritical at all to boycott a company if i am not satisfied with their products or the way they do business. thank god there are many safer and healthier alternatives to their chemical laden, environment polluting products, and until they change their ways of doing business and eliminate unnecessary animal suffering, poor quality ingredients, pollutants and additives from their products, i will continue to boycot any product that is somehow connected with their name.

[TDG]

SexxieRacerChik napisał(a):

Until further information is revealed I will not contribute to this type behavior in dog food testing. But then again...HOW do you know that the dog food you are using isn't doing the same type thing..and you just haven't heard about it yet? This is all just confusing and repulsive.

i applaud your decision, SRC. cutting into the profits of a company is the only way to get them to change their ways. it has worked with science diet (to make them remove the synthetic preservatives at least from all the regular non-prescription diets) and while it is still a poor quality food too, at least one dangerous aspect of it has been removed.

if you want to be on the safe side, you can feed a dog food made by a company that declared publicly that they do not do any animal testing that goes beyond regular feeding trials, or no testing at all. your best bet are smaller companies, they incidentally also use much higher quality ingredients for their products. not all the companies who don't do animal testing are on the PETA "do not test" list tho, since some do not want to be connected to them in any way - which is understandable. as i said in one of my otehr posts, i'm not a PETA supporter either, but they do take an important place in bringing issues to the eyes of the public, and not many other groups have the financial backing that PETA has.

and that's what it boils down to: the corporate giants have enough money to cover up and spin anything that they don't quite like to appear in a better light, but the consumer has a right to know what's going on - so make use of that right. look before you buy, not just when it comes to pet food.

[abker17]

Um ok I have not read all the posts in this topic, but just to make a point, the Iams company admitted to cruely testing on animals. They came out and admitted their wrong doing. So there's really no question of whether they did it or not, because the company themselves admitted to it.....

[courtnek]

But that's just it....these animals were found that way in dog food research facilities..not medical. I'v e nver heard of a dog food that makes my dog heal faster

any animal that is fed well heals better than one that is not. We all require certain vitamns, minerals and enzymes to retain good health...if you are healthy, you heal faster...

that said, I disagree with what Iams did. They admitted to wrongdoing,
they pushed the tests beyond acceptable limits for profit. Sorry, SD, but in medical testing things are done differently. This was testing who;s only basis was to make a dog food that they could sell as "the most beneficial thing your dog ever ate..."

And I also have to say that my cat can only eat Iams. Every other cat food on the market, dry and wet, makes him throw up. He cant keep it down. So Iams and Tuna (fresh, from the can, packed in water) is all he can eat. It irritates me, because I dont approve of what they did, but I'm not going to let my cat die because of it. Wound healing could be tested on dogs that already had wounds...they didnt have to create more. I understand the whole sterile environment thing, but I dont agree with it when testing for the quality of food. I can LOOK at my dogs and tell if the food is good for them. I feed them both Purina One Lamb and Rice.
Their coats are glossy, their weight is maintained and they love it. I know a lot of people will say EEEWWWWWWW because it's Purina, but I am a firm believer in using what works....

[science_doc]

Just for the sake of clarification:

I am a FEMALE Ph.D. student (not all scientists are male) who works with laboratory animals on a regular basis for medical research, so for those of you who insinutated that I don't know what I'm talking about in medical animal research you are wrong. For example, I have worked at a toxicology lab that did CONTROLLED(not lots of variable to invalidate the research) metabolic studies. The animals were confined to small cages during the test (allowing controlled measure of oxygen intake, carbon dioxide exhalation, and waste elimination), that was my experience at a medical testing facility. I don't know how other companies do the test, but I do know what's considered acceptable for peer reviewed scientific literature. I would also bet that those of you who object to the Iams testing would strongly object to lots of medical testing as well. The results are often not pleasent to deal with. However, I don't know any other way to progress?

I freely admitted at the start of this debate that I did not read anything published by PETA or anyone else about the Iams corporation. I am likely overly sensitive about this topic since people frequently accuse researchers like me of being insensitive "animal torturing barbarians". For me nothing could be further from the truth. I have spoken face to face with lots of animal rights activists and found them grossly uniformed, so forgive me if I'm a bit touchy on this subject. I have also found that people are easily fooled by most companies, Iams is no exception, so forgive me if I doubt other companies, they ALL use spin and 1/2 truths to sell their product. I think boycotting companies is a fine way to get them to change their practice, but in truth I think it's all spin.

Since Iams has admitted wrong doing, there is in fact no point in continuing this debate, THEY were wrong. I do how ever stand by my position that overall animal testing is beneficial to both food and medical research. I'm not sure how I feel about other products, except that I know that alternative testing could be used to reduce the animal testing until the product appears relatively safe.

TGD, as a side note I still think that you are not understanding valid versus invald reseach. I am glad you are well informed about dog food, I'm sure that I could learn lots from you. I have had bad experiences myself with other people on this site who claimed to be experts on things like genetics and then demonstrated they were completely uninformed. I also think that the vast mojority of people can be easily fooled by "scientific" looking research.......I have seen this with my own parents and friends. People in hospitals who are being kept in semi-sterile conditions because of immune supression are in fact able to be treat with anti-biotics or anti-viral agents because you are trying to keep them alive. How they were kept alive does not matter, so the methods don't matter. Often times introducing antibiotics into research studies add another level of variables. The bacteria and viruses can be introduced by the people who have to enter the animal rooms or just by the air. Those little germs find a way, even with super sterile precautions......so toys could become a major risk.

[courtnek]

I would also bet that those of you who object to the Iams testing would strongly object to lots of medical testing as well

I would be a hypocrite if I sadi that. I am a diabetic, and animals were used for testing in the discovery of insulin....

I do not object to kindly done medical testing on animals. I agree with you that it is necessary, but doesnt have to be cruel. What they did to those dogs at Iams was not medical, cruel, and uneccesary. As I said before, you can tell whether your dog is eating well by how he looks, behaves,
sleeps, eliminates and sheds. Yes, sheds. Consistant gas, multiple trips to the yard, excessive shedding, dull, dry coat, can all be attributed to diet, and correctd by changing the food, but that takes TIME....which Iams didnt want to do. They wanted to "watch" the muscles grow, and measure how much growth was attributed to feeding Iams. This in reality could have beed done with simple un-invasive measurement of the muscle mass, from the outside. but again, it takes more time. I can guarantee you body builders dont cut themselves open to measure the increase in their pecs.....

My whole point here is that these tests were unneccesary. They could have been done easily by taking a dog from a shelter, with poor coat,
bad gas, excessive shedding, etc....amd fed it Iams for 3-6 months.
Did it get better? Did it get worse? Did it grow, shrink, throw up, look healthier or more listless? Were the stools good? This is not medicine SD.
just a simple test to insure that the food is not injurious to the dog, that it
does promote and maintain good health.

I am sorry, I am not a PHd, or a certified scientist, I am someone who has owned, raised and trained dogs for 30 years. Both mutts and purebreds.
And I never had to cut a dog open and lock him a cage to tell if his food was good for him. All I had to do was clean the yard...that's a dead giveaway in most cases....

I know greed when I see it as well. Iams testing was greed, shortcuts, quicker results with more profit.

[Guest Anonymous]

science_dog, i apologize for mistaking your gender, from the way you were writing, you gave me the impression you were male. i also never said that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to animal research, but in one of your earlier posts you claimed

P+G was working with Kimberly Clark on this test about 5 years ago and I know because I was one of the scientist hired to test the alternative.

from that quote, i'd have expected that you know a little more about the company we are discussing (P&G) and the products they make, which doesn't seem to be the case tho, as far as i can tell from your remaining posts.

it was pretty obvious that you were trying to explain away so many things without even reading any of the articles, coming into this topic fairly unprepared.

we could discuss animal testing for medical research in an entirely different topic, and i'm sure we'd agree on a good number of points, but in this particular case, we are talking about research for pet food products that was cruel and unnecessary, to the point of debarking dogs for the simple reason of people not wanting to hear them expressing their suffering.

i guess we'll just have to disagree on the point of animal testing (beyond simple feeding trials) is necessary for a food product. it doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever to do this, unless for reasons of including cheaper, poor quality ingredients that could potentially cause harm - ingredients you wouldn't want to have in a food in the first place. the diet i am feeding my own dog hasn't been tested on any animals - for the simple reason that there is no need to test for reactions to fresh meat and bones, vegetables, fruits, dairy products and grains. but of course there is also no profit in that for the corporate giants, so why do it in the first place?

i am very well informed about valid vs. invalid animal testing and research, for one because i was very active in campaigning for bans and alternatives when i still lived in europe and i have seen the results that can be achieved in places where the "big players" with all their money don't have the influence on the government as they do here in the US. i am aware about how P&G first tried to sidestep the european ban on animal testing for certain products and then attempted to hamper the passing of more laws that would regulate testing even more. thank god they did not succeed.

as far as boycotting them goes, one of my reasons is, as i said before, their business practices and undelivered promises, but another is the fact that most of their products are full of unnecessary chemicals and simply harmful to the environment. P&G makes no attempts to use alternatives that are less polluting and more environmentally friendly. it doesn't hurt or inconvenience me at all to buy "planet" or "7th generation" biodegradable laundry and dish detergent or dish soap instead of "tide" or "cascade" or "dawn". especially not when these alternative products are often cheaper and of better quality. and i certainly don't understand how someone would want to drink something as vile as "SunnyD", a "fruit drink" that you have a hard time tracking down an ingredient list for, because they don't want you to see that it's mostly water, corn syrup, vegetable oil and maybe 5% of one juice or another.

but i guess not enough people care about stuff like that anyway. they just look at the commercials they are fed on TV for hours on end, without thinking. i'm not only concerned about my own health or that of my dog, but also about the state of our planet in 20, 50 or 100 years down the road. we may need medication to treat certain diseases, but do we really need dish soap in 25 different colors, individually triple-wrapped feminine hygiene products and stuff like that? i don't think so.

[Guest Anonymous]

Thank you to all who responded to my question. After weeding through
the responces, I would have to say, Hillside's picture of the sattle patterned boarder collie was the closest except the head was all yellow/orange with no white,. It's face and ears looked like a beagle but bigger, and no white stripe. It's body was thicker than a boarder collie.
Thanks!

[Guest Anonymous]

*Deleted*

[Queen Bitch]

Also Cryzanna, that dog in the picture was from working Border Collie lines, show Border Collies do tend to look a bit more like the dog in the commercial and are a little bit thicker in the body and rounder in the face, and the markings of that pattern can very quite a bit. That being said, it's entirely possible that it was Border Collie mix. There are quite a few dogs that have mixed parentage that can look like a purebred. :lol: Glad I could help you narrow it down though.

[courtnek]

we did sorta get off the subject, didnt we? Sorry, chryzanna

I havent seen the commerical, but the border collie (I think it was) with the orange face and colored markings is just gorgeous....

[Guest Mutts4Me]

I finally saw the commercial! We were going through old tapes, and at one point, my dad hit "Stop" to do something else. Just as he was about to hit "Play," I saw that dog! I yelled "WAIT!" lol :)

So I've never seen a BC with that kind of pattern, and my first thought would have been that it was a BC/collie or BC/shepherd mix because of the coloring. But if that pattern does exit, then I guess it may have been a pure BC... It's really hard for me to visualize a BC body with that pattern because I've never considered it before. Like I would have a hard time visualizing a purebred Doberman with brindle/white coloring, lol. It is a cute dog though :)