|
|
 |
Why Iams? >
Correspondence
 “We are pleased that Iams will include ‘very specific instructions for pain management and socialization’…We would like Iams to make a commitment to this being an interim measure while it figures out how to bring all studies in-house. We know this is possible if Iams will only plan for it.”
— October 22, 2001, letter from PETA to Diane A. Hirakawa, Senior Vice President, Iams Research & Development.
“We fully realize that Iams is a business and that changes to almost anything it does are evaluated on a cost basis. We also know for a fact that in university settings, animal quarters and care are the lowest priorities. This is due, in part, to the very low standards set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but it is also due to greed. The less money spent on the animals, the more money available for the researcher to use at his/her discretion. Iams must show that it is not cheap where animals are concerned…I will say we have very serious concerns about Iams’ resistance to bringing its research completely in-house. I hope you can appreciate that it is a moral difficulty for us to spend valuable time working to convince a company like Iams that dogs need mental stimulation and companionship-just common decency-driven standards-rather than to be stuck, alone, in what is basically a steel box in a barren room.”
— October 18, 2001, letter from PETA to Jeff Ansel, President of The Iams Company.
“We will strengthen our protocols to include very specific instructions for pain management and socialization, with our goal being to eliminate even minor pain and create enriched environments for the dogs and cats…I realize that you have heard it all before, but we are truly committed to our Mission of enhancing the well being of dogs and cats, and we feel that we’re moving in the right direction. That’s why I felt it was important for me to write and give you our commitment.”
— October 16, 2001, letter sent to PETA by Diane A. Hirakawa, Senior Vice President, Iams Research & Development.
“Thanks again for bringing Dan Carey and Bryan Brown to Norfolk to discuss Iams’ use of animals in nutritional studies…I can tell you how Iams’ dogs in contract laboratories – whether private or university labs – are likely kept. They are surely kept in AWA-compliant cages – that is, the floor space of the cage in square inches is the length of the dog in inches plus six inches, multiplied by the length of the dog plus six inches. No doubt the facility has a written plan for exercise that it does not have to prove it implements and that it implements infrequently if at all. The dogs are probably without resting platforms or bedding as the internal temperature most likely never dips below 50 degrees which is the only trigger for providing bedding under the AWA, they are probably not socialized, and they are probably in cell rows. Dan Carey would find this acceptable because it meets regulations but I know you understand that this is exactly the type of paltry existence we are challenging Iams to change, or should I say demanding that Iams change? It can better do so with complete control over the animals and the facility in which they are housed.”
— October 9, 2001, letter from PETA to Larry M. Games, Professional and Regulatory Services, Research and Development Department, Proctor & Gamble Worldwide.
“There are two unresolved issues from our exchange of letters that we hope you will contemplate and address before our meeting…1) With regard to the company’s statement on nutritional studies, we ask that it be expanded to say that the company will not conduct any studies that cause discomfort, illness, or stress or that involve survival surgery. 2) We also ask that Iams use only its own facilities here and in the U.K. to conduct nutritional studies. We all know that animals used by contract and university laboratories are recycled if they can be, and that means that these animals may end up as cheap fodder for someone else’s painful tests, perhaps highly invasive ones or those involving the forced ingestion of toxins. Furthermore, conditions in contract and university facilities are notoriously inhumane, no matter how well funded.”
— September 6, 2001, letter from PETA to Jeff Ansel, President of The Iams Company.
“Thank you for your July 12 letter…Your letter did not respond to our request that Iams forego the use of contract laboratories for nutritional tests. I hope you will address this point shortly.”
— July 17, 2001, letter from PETA to Jeff Ansel, President of The Iams Company.
“We are troubled by the use of contract and university laboratories by major dog and cat food manufacturers. The living conditions for animals in these facilities are barren, bare bones stuff and we know that the animals used in Iams…or any other manufacturer’s tests are most likely ‘recycled’ into other tests after they are used in ‘noninvasive’ nutritional studies.”
— June 20, 2001, letter from PETA to Jeff Ansel, President of The Iams Company.
<< back
|
|
|
