Iam's testing

[imported_Matty]

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

I was just looking at this site. I was just curious, I read some where in a new holistic dog book I just bought that all dog food companies do testing and they send them to a "central" testing place. So, where some of these dog food companies don't have the money to have their own testing facility do they have Iams test it for them? It would kinda account for the hundreds of tests they perform. In the book I have (and just as soon as I will find it I will quote what they say :lol: ) it said that kibble and dog food companies all have to perform certain tests on animals. I don't know how true that is. This book promotes raw feeding so maybe they are a little baised?
Any how, do you think maybe we are getting mad at Iams when its probably all dog foods that do these horrible tests? should we be mad at all dog food companies?
I am just curious. :confused1:

[imported_Debbie]

It appears that this *Uncaged* group has the best interests of animals at heart. I think if they got wind of any other companies doing this they'd be on their tails too........I don't think they are unfairly pointing the finger at just Iams. The raw food book may have something but without concrete proof, it looks like a statement made to further their own regiment with raw feeding. I'm not saying their wrong, I'm just saying they need to back up their statements with more evidence. :wink:

[imported_Matty]

I just got this book :lol: I don't have it here with me but when I do I will give you the name of the aruther. I didn't quote exactly what the guy said but that was his general implication. :wink:

[TDG]

matty, i will be addressing your post from the aspect of legislation in the US, so the following does not apply to all countries worldwide:

I read some where in a new holistic dog book I just bought that all dog food companies do testing and they send them to a "central" testing place.

not all dog food companies do testing, and it's not required by any law. yet many manufacturers choose to do feeding trials and palatability studies to develop their products. the bigger companies also perform testing that is not directly related to food production, and some of that is what you see in the video on the site you visited.

pet food manufacturers can follow either one of two procedures to ensure their foods provide adequate nutrition ("adequate" being very loosely defined by AAFCO standards, the Association of American Feed Control Officials, but i won't get into that at this point):
1. formulate their foods to meet the nutrient profile for the particular lifestage they are designed for and do a lab analysis to assure nutrient content. this does not involve any animals at all.
2. feeding trials that have to meet a few specific requirements (look here and scroll down to "Nutritional Adequacy Statement" for details. it is not required for these animals to suffer in steel cages or bare kennels during feeding trials, the conditions they are kept in solely depend on how much the manufacturer cares.

So, where some of these dog food companies don't have the money to have their own testing facility do they have Iams test it for them?

there is no central place for testing, but third-party companies that will do feeding trials or lab analyses under contract exist. iams for example is using such contractor companies. and since they are contractors, it's very likely other companies would be using them too.

It would kinda account for the hundreds of tests they perform.

sadly, they do not only do testing for their food products, but also many other things, some more and some less useful, and many unnecessary.

In the book I have (and just as soon as I will find it I will quote what they say icon_lol.gif ) it said that kibble and dog food companies all have to perform certain tests on animals. I don't know how true that is.

not true at all, see above. pet food formulations can be lab analyzed to ensure they meet the nutrient profiles established by AAFCO.

This book promotes raw feeding so maybe they are a little baised?

maybe biased, but maybe also just poorly researched. the author obviously has a certain goal (promoting raw feeding), but doesn't have all the facts straight, which for me immediately raises hte question if the "other side of the coin" is just as poorly researched.

Any how, do you think maybe we are getting mad at Iams when its probably all dog foods that do these horrible tests? should we be mad at all dog food companies? I am just curious.

it would be unfair to lump all pet food manufacturers into the same category. there are some who do no animal testing at all, some who do research at their own facilities, and some who use third party contractors. and even the latter two can vary drastically in the way they house and treat their animals. i know that for example natura (innova/innova evo, california natural, healthwise, karma) has their own research facility and animals are cared for and treated really well. they do not live in lab conditions. then there are companies who use breeder sponsoring as a way of testing their food, and in that case it pretty much depends on the breeder how well the animals are taken care of. it could be a commercial operation that's pretty much a puppy mill, or a responsible breeder who truly cares and has a personal interest in working with a pet food company to improve a product. an example is the great dane lady who worked with eagle pack on a study about adequate nutrition for large and giant breed puppies.

[courtnek]

ok dont chew me up, but I have to add this....

the Iams testing on the website is an issue that is actually quite old. Iams sold their testing issues to a third party lab, and didnt follow up on what they were actually doing., bad, in any scenario, but when you work for a company that big, quite often the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing. Thats not an excuse, just simple truth.

when Peta exposed them, they promised to stop doing business with this lab, and to find the experimental animals homes. Their contract with the lab has been terminated. I dont know if the "homes" were ever found, I have not been able to find any references to that, but I havent looked in quite a few months either.

I work for a company that could compare with Iams (and their affiliates and sub-companies) and believe me, more often than not the left hand really DOESNT know what the right hand is doing...its not like they turned a blind eye deliberately...they trusted this lab to do their testing, and the lab was doing testing that was both completely unnecessary, and invasive to the animals. I am not defending Iams. I am merely stating the facts of the case that I have been able to determine.

[Guest Mutts4Me]

I just think P&G is test happy, myself!

I used to use Aussie hair products, which were always "Not Tested on Animals." Then last year, they were bought by P&G, which re-vamped the whole line, and suddenly, the cruelty free label was gone!!! Same thing happened to Herbal Essences, which I didn't use, but am still upset about. How obnoxious. The new Aussie products suck in comparison to the old ones, too :-?